~'^W<S>t-".-tH>,<'- 


!oS^^<^^: 


ipil 


^m 


U/VIMARV 


Christian  Doctrine 


0^*/^, 


A  SUMMARY 


Christian  Doctrine 


BY 
FRANCIS  L.  PATTON,  D.  D.,  LL.D. 

PRESIDENT  OF  PRINCETON   UNIVERSITY 


Ipbilabelpbia 

Zbc  Mestmlnster  ^xcee 

1901 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1875,  by 

THE  TRUSTEES  OF  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN   BOARD   OF   PUBLICATION, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


INTEODUCTORY. 


An  opinion  is  one  thing,  a  fact  is  another.  If  a  man 
Bays  that  he  believes  the  moon  is  inhabited,  we  may  very 
properly  say,  "  That  is  your  opinion,  but  we  differ  with  you." 
And  since  the  opinion  in  question  is  at  present  not  capable 
of  proof,  prolonged  argument  would  not  be  called  for. 

Many  entertain  the  idea  that  what  are  called  "  the  doc- 
trines" are  only  conjectures  or  opinions  for  which  there  is 
little  or  no  evidence,  and  certainly  no  proof. 

This  is  a  mistake. 

We  may  assent  or  not  to  an  opinion  as  we  please ;  if  we 
reject  a  fact,  we  only  advertise  our  stupidity.  If  a  man 
denies  that  the  three  angles  of  a  triangle  are  together  equal 
to  two  right  angles,  we  can  demonstrate  the  proposition. 
If  he  says  that  Brutus  did  not  kill  Caesar,  we  can  open 
the  books  of  history  and  convince  him.  In  the  one  case 
we  reach  mathematical  certainty,  in  the  other  moral.  If 
in  face  of  evidence  a  man  persists  in  denying  facts,  he  acts 
unreasonably.     Now,  "  the  doctrines"  are  facts. 

But  though  truth  for  truth's  sake  is  the  motto  of  the 
philosopher,  it  is  nevertheless  certain  that  we  cannot  know 
everything,  and  there 'may  be  considerations  which  make 
some  truths  more  important  than  others.  The  sick  man 
wishes  above  all  things  to  know  what  medicine  will  help  his 
case.  And  the  most  important  truth  to  every  man  is  that 
which  makes  known  the  conditions  of  a  happy  hereafter. 
**The  doctrines"  claim  a  position  above  all   other  truth 

5 


6  SUM3IARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

because  of  their  practical  value.  If  any  one  chooses  to  call 
this  a  utilitarian  philosophy,  he  may.  Certainly,  if  there 
were  no  questions  of  destiny  pending,  there  might  be  more 
excuse  for  those  who  are  jubilant  over  the  discovery  of  a 
fossil,  but  indifferent  to  the  facts  of  Christianity.  The  doc- 
trines are  truths  which  are  capable  of  proof,  and  which 
stand  in  vital  relation  to  the  life  that  now  is  and  to  that 
which  is  to  come.  These  considerations  will  shape  the 
method  to  be  observed  in  the  following  pages, 


THE  FACTORS  IN  EELIGION :   MAN  AND  GOD. 

Religion  is  the  bond  which  unites  God  and  man.  It 
supposes,  therefore,  two  factors — man,  the  subject  of  relig- 
ious feelings,  and  God,  the  object  of  religious  worship.  To 
cast  doubt  on  either  of  these  factors  would  be  to  damage  or 
destroy  religion.  If  the  universal  beliefs  of  mankind  had 
been  allowed  to  pass  unchallenged,  it  would  not  be  necessary 
to  offer  arguments  for  the  existence  of  mind  or  of  God. 
Infidels,  however,  have  put  Christians  on  their  defence,  and 
their  bold  denials  of  fundamental  truth  make  it  proper, 
and  perhaps  necessary,  that,  even  in  so  brief  a  statement 
of  doctrine  as  this  is  intended  to  be,  something  should  be 
said  to  show  how  we  can  vindicate  our  religious  nature. 

I.  Man. 

The  most  pretentious  form  of  current  philosophy  denies 
our  existence,  or  rather,  that  element  in  our  existence  which 
gives  it  value :  the  mind.  Tlie  student  of  theology  has  a 
battle  to  fight  at  the  threshold,  and  his  first  foe  is  the 
materialist ;  for  if  it  should  turn  out  that  what  we  call 
mind  is  only  material  force,  it  would  be  absurd  to  talk  of 


SUJ^mARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  f 

religion,  since  there  could  be  no  God  to  worship  and  no 
"we"  to  bow  down  to  him.  Suppose,  now,  that  some  dis- 
ciple of  Maudesley  should  hear  us  arguing  for  the  being 
of  God  from  the  laws  of  mind,  and  should  meet  us  plumply 
with  the  question,  How  do  you  know  that  such  a  thing  as 
mind  exists?  What  should  we  say?  We  might  feel  that 
this  is  a  question  which  we  were  not  expecting — we  should 
certainly  feel  that,  metaphysical  though  it  is,  it  has  a  great 
deal  to  do  with  religion,  and  demands  an  answer.  Our 
reflections  when  written  out  might  take  a  form  something 
like  the  following : 

1.  I  exist.  This  is  taken  for  granted  in  everything  I 
do,  say  or  think.  There  can  be  no  knowing,  feeling,  will- 
ing, without  an  "I"  to  know,  feel  and  will.  What  is  this 
something  which  goes  by  the  name  "I,"  "me,"  "self," 
"  ego"  ?  It  is  not  my  body,  for  I  know  I  am  separate  from 
it.  It  is  not  any  part  of  my  body ;  my  brain  is  mine,  not 
me.  There  is  a  necessity  laid  upon  me  of  thinking  that  I^ 
exist ;  for  if  I  should  think  I  did  not  exist,  I  should  have 
to  exist  in  order  to  think  that  I  did  not.  This  brings  us  to 
Descartes'  famous  utterance,  "  I  think,  therefore  I  am." 

Now,  I  have  certain  powers  or  attributes  which  my  body 
does  not  have,  which  no  part  of  my  body  has.  I  will  to 
lift  my  arm.  I  know  that  my  arm  could  not  exert  an  act 
of  will,  nor  is  it  possible  for  me  to  conceive  of  any  material 
substance  exercising  volition.  Will  power  is  a  power  which 
*'I"  exert;  and  when  I  see  a  manifestation  of  it  which  is 
not  due  to  me,  I  at  once  attribute  it  to  another  "I"  or 
"self"  similar  to  me — that  is  to  say,  to  another  person.  I 
know.  Knowledge  is  one  of  my  prerogatives  which  mate- 
rial substances  do  not  possess.  A  stone  cannot  Iwnow  or 
feel. 

To  sum  up  :  There  is  a  something,  ens,  entity,  s  ibstance 
— called  "  I,"  "  me,"  "  self"  This  something  has  attributea 
which  matter  has  not,  and  it  has  not  the  properties  of  mat- 


8    «  SU3IMAEY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

ter.  We  are  compelled  to  think  that  it  is  a  different  sub- 
stance, and  we  call  it  mind.  The  more  we  attempt  to  real- 
ize the  proposition  that  mind  is  matter,  the  more  its  absurd- 
ity grows  upon  us,  and  the  more  does  the  distinction 
between  the  two  assert  itself  as  a  necessity  of  thought.  In 
philosophical  language  we  say  that  the  distinction  is  a  fact 
of  consciousness. 

2.  The  philosophy  which  denies  mind  a  place  in  the 
universe  ought  to  be  able  to  support  its  terrible  conclusions 
by  the  presentation  of  evidence.  But  when  asked  on  what 
authority  they  deny  the  universal  beliefs  of  mankind,  these 
philosophers  have  very  little  to  say.  To  be  sure,  they  are 
able  to  show  that  there  is  an  intimate  connection  between 
mind  and  body,  and  they  talk  learnedly  about  nerve-cur- 
rents and  the  grey  matter  of  the  brain.  But  between 
matter  and  thought,  between  nerve-currents  and  personal- 
ity, there  is  a  breach  which  this  philosophy  does  not  fill. 
The  belief  in  mind  is  a  necessity  of  thought — a  necessity 
felt  none  the  less  by  those  who  write  books  to  prove  that 
mind  does  not  exist.  The  materialist  has  encountered  two 
barriers  which  rise  mountain-like  to  dispute  his  passage 
into  the  realm  of  mind :  the  one  is  the  mystery  of  life,  and 
che  other  is  the  mystery  of  personality.  The  attempt  to 
bring  a  living  thing  out  of  dead  matter  and  to  make  mind 
a  department  of  physiology  has  been  a  failure. 

3.  The  hypothesis  that  thought  is  a  function  of  brain 
is  beset  with  endless  confusion,  and  is  palpably  absurd, 
According  to  it,  the  rationale  of  conversation  is  this :  A 
movement  takes  place  in  A's  brain  which  we  call  A's  voli- 
tion to  speak ;  other  movements  follow  which  we  call 
thoughts ;  these  are  attended  with  the  articulation  of  cer- 
tain sounds ;  these  fall  on  the  tympanum  of  B's  ear,  affect 
the  auditory  nerve  and  cause  the  movements  or  nerve-cur- 
rents called  hearing ;  other  movements  follow  in  B's  brain, 
attended  by  corresponding  articulations,  which  constitute 


SUM3fARY  OF  DOCTRINE,  9 

B's  reply.  Talking  is  just  telegraph-operating  without  the 
operators. 

The  theory  involves  the  following  incongruous  elements: 
(a.)  Matter  thinks,  feels,  wills.  (6.)  The  irresistible  convic- 
tion of  this  thinking  matter  is  that  it  is  not  matter,  but 
mind,  (c.)  Thinking,  feeling,  willing,  as  it  does,  this  mat- 
ter is  necessarily  of  the  opinion  that  matter  cannot  think, 
feel  or  will. 

And  further,  we  might  say  to  him  who  seeks  to  convince 
us  that  mind  does  not  exist :  It  is  folly  for  you  to  undertake 
any  such  task ;  for  if  your  theory  is  true,  I  am  not  properly 
the  subject  of  argument.  You  might  as  well  expect  a  dead 
man  to  find  comfort  in  his  funeral  sermon.  Convincing  me, 
were  you  to  succeed,  would  only  mean  setting  in  motion  cer- 
tain nerve-currents  in  a  material  organism.  And  besides, you, 
in  the  act  of  arguing,  are  only  a  material  organism,  with  a 
set  of  material  forces  at  work  which  you  call  your  philosoph- 
ical opinions.  One  Leyden  jar  might  as  well  be  supposed 
to  discuss  chemistry  with  another  Leyden  jar  as  for  you  and 
me  to  talk  metaphysics. 

And  yet  again :  If  I  am  convinced  that  you  are  right,  I 
am  convinced  that  consciousness  has  played  me  false.  But 
if  in  regard  to  this  fundamental  conviction  I  am  deceived, 
how  can  I  be  sure  of  my  eyes  and  my  ears  when  they  tell 
me  that  you  are  present  and  that  you  speak  ?  To  be  con- 
vinced that  consciousness  is  a  false  witness  seems  to  be  im- 
possible, when  I  remember  that  my  belief  in  the  existence 
of  my  philosophical  acquaintance  is  founded  on  a  belief  in 
the  veracity  of  consciousness.  I  must  trust  my  consciousness 
in  order  that  I  may  be  convinced  that  it  is  mendacious, 
which  involves  an  absurdity  akin  to  that  of  a  man  trying 
to  take  himself  up  in  his  arms. 


10  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

II.  God. 

t)  The  belief  ii  God  is  universal.  All  men  believe  in  the 
existence  of  some  being  or  beings  above  them  to  whom  they 
are  responsible  and  whom  it  behooves  them  to  propitiate-. 
This  belief  is  not  the  result  of  argument,  for  the  majt)rity 
of  men  have  never  faced  the  question  why  they  believe  in 
God.  The  fact  that  this  belief  is  so  widespread  is  a  strong 
argument  in  favor  of  its  truth.  It  would  be  strange  if  the 
human  race  were  unanimous  in  entertaining  a  falsehood 
like  this ;  and  though  the  atheist  will  say  that  this  is  not 
more  strange  than  the  fact  that  men  for  ages  believed 
that  sun,,  moon  and  stars  revolved  round  the  earth,  yet  a 
moment's  thought  will  show  that  the  cases  are  not  parallel. 
The  sun  seemed  to  them  to  rise  and  set,  and  the  stars  to 
move  from  east  to  west.  It  was  perfectly  natural  that  they 
should  trust  their  eyes.  Or  if  it  should  be  said  that  men 
have  held  with  considerable  unanimity  the  belief  in  many 
superstitions  regarding  the  supernatural,  we  should  reply 
again  that,  given  the  fact  of  a  widespread  conception  re- 
specting the  supernatural,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
the  multiplied  misconceptions.  But  it  is  not  easy  to 
explain  how  it  happened  that  a  universal  belief  in  the 
supernatural  should  have  taken  possession  of  the  minds 
of  men  if  there  is  no  supernatural.  If  God  exists,  we  can 
account  for  the  crudities  which  are  associated  with  the  be- 
lief in  his  existence.  But  on  the  hypothesis  of  material- 
ism, the  genesis  of  the  idea  of  God  is  without  explanation. 
Atheism  leaves  us  with  a  universal  effect  without  any  assign- 
able cause.  Our  belief  in  God  we  will  allow  is  open,  however, 
to  honest  criticism.  If  evidence  could  be  brought  to  show 
that  it  is  without  foundation  or  is  false,  we  should  listen  to 
it  and  give  it  all  the  consideration  it  deserves.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  fair  to  require  of  him  who  undertakes  to  over- 
throw the  world's   faith   that   he   present   some  objection 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  H 

which  goes  beyond  an  assertion  of  his  own  skepticism.  The 
atheist  as  yet  has  not  met  this  requirement.  If  he  reminds 
us  that  advancing  science  is  banishing  polytheism,  we  shall 
remind  him,,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  at  the  same  time 
establishing  theism.  If  he  tells  us  that  the  phenomena  in 
the  material  world  occur  in  accordance  with  universal  law 
and  are  due  to  the  operation  of  one  force,  we  shall  tell  him 
that  he  must  believe  in  one  omnipotent  and  omnipresent  Be- 
ing before  these  generalizations  can  have  any  significance, 
that  they  do  not  conflict  necessarily  with  our  belief  in  God, 
and  that  they  do  not  add  much  to  what  we  learned  from  the 
Book  which  says:  "In  him  we  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being"  (Acts  xvii.  28),  and  which  tells  us  that  "In  him 
and  through  him  and  to  him  are  all  things."  Kom.  xi.  36. 

Belief  in  God  is  universal;  this  is  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  the  doctrine  of  God's  existence,  and  lays  the  bur- 
den of  proof  on  him  who  undertakes  to  set  it  aside.  The 
atheist  may  be  defied  to  show  that  any  fact  of  science  is 
inconsonant  with  theism.  We,  however,  are  able  to  pro- 
duce arguments  which  abundantly  serve  to  vindicate  our 
faith  and  to  condemn  the  atheist. 

We  shall  notice  four:  (1.)  That  which  is  based  on  the 
idea  of  cause.  (2.)  That  which  arises  out  of  our  moral 
nature.     (3.)  Scripture.     (4.)  Congruity. 

1.  Cause.  We  are  so  constituted  that  whenever  any 
event  occurs  we  are  necessarily  led  to  ask  a  reason  for  it,  or 
to  believe  that  it  was  due  to  some  cause.  This  fact  in  our 
mental  constitution  is  the  basis  of  the  two  methods  of  rea- 
soning which  are  commonly  known  as  the  cosmological  and 
the  teleological  arguments. 

(a.)  The  cosmological  argument.  Every  change  is  due 
to  some  cause.  Let  us  see  where  this  statement  will  lead 
us.  We  exist.  We  owe  our  existence  to  our  parents.  Our 
parents  owe  theirs  to  their  parents,  and  so  on.  Unless  we 
adopt  Darwinism,  we  must  conclude  that  the  human  race  is 


12  SU31MARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

eternal,  or  that  the  chain  of  which  parent  and  child  are  the 
links  terminates  in  our  first  parents.  But  we  raLnot  believe 
that  the  human  race  is  eternal,  for  this  would  be  like  sup- 
posing that  one  link  of  a  chain  is  supported  by  the  one 
above  it,  and  that  by  the  one  above  it,  and  so  back  to  infin- 
ity. By  a  necessity  of  thought  we  must  think  of  a  first 
link  which  is  fixed  and  w'hich  supports  all  the  rest.  So  the 
chain  of  causes  must  bring  us  to  the  first  man,  the  father  of 
the  human  race,  and  he  must  be  self-existent,  or  he  must  seek 
for  a  cause  of  his  existence.     How  did  he  come  into  being  ? 

Take  other  species  of  animal  life.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  any  species  has  developed  by  gradual  transition  out 
of  a  lower  species ;  so  that,  tracing  the  individuals  of  any 
species  backward,  we  come,  as  in  the  case  of  man,  to  the 
first  individuals  of  the  species.  And  the  question  occurs 
again,  What  is  the  cause  of  their  existence? 

We  are  of  necessity  led  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a 
necessary  self-existing  First  Cause ;  and  unless  we  adopt 
the  theory  of  evolution,  we  soon  come  to  a  point  where  it 
becomes  necessary  to  look  for  that  cause  outside  of  matter. 
But  were  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  accepted,  it  would  re- 
lieve us  of  no  difficulty  ;  for  grant  that  the  eflTects  or  changes 
in  the  material  world  can  be  traced  back  in  a  chain  of  finite 
causations  till  we  come  to  an  original  ether,  this  ether  is 
in  motion  or  else  it  is  at  rest.  If  it  is  in  motion,  the  motion 
Is  a  change  which  demands  a  cause  ;  and  as  an  infinite  series 
of  finite  causes  is  inconceivable,  we  must  believe  that  mat- 
ter is  the  originator  of  motion  or  is  self-moved.  But  this 
is  inconceivable.  Plato  argued,  and  we  see  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  correctness  of  his  reasoning,  that,  since  it  is  im- 
possible for  the  mind  to  conceive  of  matter  originating  mf>- 
tion,  there  must  be  a  mind  as  the  first  cause  of  motion. 

ih.)  The  teleological  argument.  This  likewise  is  as  old  aa 
Plato,  though  made  more  familiar  to  us  by  the  writings  of 
Paley  and  others.     If,  says  Paley,  we  were  walking  on  th© 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE:  13 

Bea-shore,  and  should  find  a  watch  on  the  sand,  we  should 
discover  on  examination  that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  measurer 
of  time,  that  the  parts  of  the  watch  are  contrived  for  bring- 
ing about  this  result ;  we  should  never  dream  that  the  parts 
were, fitted  to  each  other  and  with  such  delicate  adjustment, 
as  a  matter  of  chance.  .  We  could  not  resist  the  feeling  that 
the  watch  was  the  product  of  w^onderful  skill,  and  the  work 
of  a  designing  mind.  Applying  this  reasoning  to  what  we 
observe  in  nature,  we  conclude  that  the  universe  is  not  only 
an  efiect  which  has  a  cause,  but  an  effect  which  has  an 
intelligent  cause.  Paley's  watch  is  none  the  worse  for  wear  ; 
and  however  much  some  are  disposed  to  disparage  this  line 
of  argument,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  it  is  impossible  for 
the  mind  to  face  the  evidences  of  design  in  nature  without 
feeling  that  they  testify  to  an  intelligent  Creator.  A  man 
may  say  that  it  is  possible  that  these  so-called  adaptations 
are  nothing  more  than  a  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms. 
When  he  says  this,  however,  he  is  not  seeking  truth,  but 
seeking  an  excuse  for  not  assenting  to  the  force  of  evidence. 
As  long  as  he  is  in  this  state  of  mind  it  will  be  of  no  use 
to  multiply  the  evidences  of  design.  The  man  who  can 
see  no  evidence  of  design  in  the  structure  of  his  own  body 
is  not  likely  to  be  convinced  by  illustrations  drawn  from 
the  latest  discoveries  in  science.* 

2.  The  moral  argument.  There  are  two  pairs  of  correla- 
tive expressions  which  we  all  use,  and  which,  if  we  stop  to 
think,  almost  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of  God.  These 
expressions  are — right  and  wrong ;  ought  and  ought  not. 

Some  actions  we  pronounce  right,  others  we  say  are 
wrong.     Benevolence  is  right,  envy  is  wrong.     The  same 

*  For  illustrations  of  design  in  nature,  we  refer  to  the  admirable 
eummary  of  the  teleological  argument  in  the  first  volume  of  Dr. 
Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  to  the  numerous  works  on  natural  the- 
logy  and  to  the  volumes  of  lectures  published  by  the  Christian  Evi- 
dence Society  of  London. 


14  SUMiMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

thing  may  be  called  right  and  wrong,  it  is  true,  by  different 
persons,  but  all  feel  that  the  distinction  is  fundamental  and 
necessary.  It  is  not  because  a  word  or  action  pleases  us  that 
we  call  it  right.  Its  moral  quality  we  know  is  something 
altogether  different  from  the  feeling  of  pleasure  or  displeas- 
ure which  it  occasions.  We  are  conscious,  when  we  say  of 
a  word  or  act  that  it  is  wrong,  of  appealing  to  an  absolute 
standard,  and  our  judgment  is  simply  an  expression  of  its 
want  of  conformity  with  it.  A  standard  there  must  be,  or 
the  words  right  and  wrong  would  have  no  meaning.  What 
is  that  standard?  Some  tell  us  that  there  is  an  eternal 
principle  of  right,  but  what  meaning  can  we  attach  to  a 
principle  of  right  as  the  standard  of  moral  action?  Let  us, 
however,  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  perfect  moral  being, 
whose  nature  constitutes  the  ground  of  right,  and  then  we 
use  language  intelligibly  when  we  speak  of  right  and  wrong. 

Again,  morality  is  obligatory.  We  are  conscious  of  this. 
There  are  some  things  which  we  ought  to  do  and  some  which 
we  ought  not  to  do.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  say- 
ing to  a  man,  "  It  will  be  better  for  you  to  be  honest,  for  hon- 
esty is  the  best  policy,"  and  saying,  "  You  are  bound  to  be 
honest."  The  difference  is  so  great  that,  though  the  attempt 
has  more  than  once  been  made  to  show  how  the  idea  of 
obligation  can  be  developed  out  of  the  idea  of  expediency, 
it  has  never  succeeded.  If  there  is  no  God,  why  do  I  feel 
under  obligation  ?  Who  has  a  right  to  command  me  ?  If 
atheism  is  true,  obligatory  morals  are  impossible.  Our 
moral  nature  speaks,  however,  in  the  imperative  mood.  We 
must  believe  in  God,  or  believe  that  the  root  of  our  nature 
is  a  lie. 

3.  Scripture.  A  great  deal  of  our  knowledge  rests  on  the 
testimony  of  others.  Testimony,  however,  would  be  worth- 
less if  we  believed  that  men  would  lie  as  readily  as  they  would 
speak  the  truth.  Now,  supposing  that  we  were  not  led  by 
the  constitution  of  our  nature  to  believe  in  God,  there  is  no 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  1-5 

reason  why  the  Bible  should  not  be  competent  to  give  inde 
pendent  proof  of  His  being.     If  the  testimony  of  travelers 
is  enough  to  satisfy  us  as  to  the  appearance  and  habits  of 
men  in  the  heart  of  Africa  whom  we  have  never  seen,  the 
Bible,  if  it  is  authentic  history,  is  enough  to  satisfy  us  of  the 
existence  of  a  Being  who  made  all  things,  who  works  mira- 
cles and  knows  the  end  from  the  beginning.     Some  facts, 
we  concede,  require  more  evidence  than  others,  for  their  sup- 
port.    The  Bible  history,  however,  is  supported  by  evidence 
enough  to  satisfy  every  just  demand.     If  aoy  history  is  veri- 
table, the  history  of  the  Jews  is ;  but  take  God  out  of  the 
Jewish  history,  and  what  would  remain  ?      Prophecy  is  not 
explainable  on  atheistic  principles,  but  the  Bible  contains 
the  record  of  prophecy  and  the  record  of  its  fulfillment. 
The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  certified  not  only  by  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  saw  Him  alive  after  his  passion,  but  by 
the  fact  that  the  gospel  was  first  preached  in  Jerusalem, 
where  neither  the  desire  nor  the  material  was  wanting  for 
the  destruction  of  Christianity,  if  it  were  true  that  the  apos- 
tles appealed  to  a  falsehood  when  they  referred  to  the  resur- 
rection.    If  we  cannot  believe  in  God's  existence  on  the 
testimony  of  the  Bible,  we  might  as  well  burn  our  books 
of  history.     A  man  cannot  deny  its  testimony  unless  he 
says  plainly,  "  No  amount  of  testimony  will  convince  me  of 
the  supernatural."     Of  course  such  skepticism  is  incurable. 
4.  Congruity.     We  know  that  we  have  the  wrong  key 
when  it  does  not  fit  all  the  wards  of  the  lock.     On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  a  strong  argument  for  the  truth  of  a  theory 
that  it  explains  all  the  facts  in  the  case.     The  belief  in  a 
Belf-existent  personal  God  is  in  harmony  with  all  the  facts 
of  our  mental  and  moral  nature  as  well  as  with  all  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  material  world.     If  God  exists,  a  universal 
belief  in  his  existence  is  natural  enough ;  the  irresistible  im- 
pulse to  ask  for  a  first  cause  is  accounted  for;  our  relig- 
ious nature  has  an  object ;  the  uniformity  of  natural  law 


16  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

finds  an  adequate  explanation,  and  human  history  is  vin- 
dicated from  the  charge  of  being  an  immense  imposture. 
Atheism  leaves  all  these  matters  without  any  explanation, 
and  makes  not  history  alone,  but  our  intellectual  nature 
itself,  an  imposture  and  a  lie. 

The  line  of  argument  which  we  have  pursued  has  brought 
us  first  to  a  reasoned  belief  in  Animism,  and  secondly  to 
a  reasoned  belief  in  Theism.  The  atheist,  however,  may 
say,  "  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  not  demonstration.  It 
mai/  be  there  is  no  God,  and  that  my  consciousness  bears 
false  witness."  Of  course,  if  a  man  goes  so  far  as  to  charge 
his  very  nature  with  falsehood,  we  have  nothing  more  to 
say.  Discussion  would  be  useless.  It  is  worth  while  to 
note  the  fact  that  the  strongest  argument  of  the  atheist 
is  that  the  theist  has  not  demonstrated  the  being  of  God ; 
and  in  reply  it  is  enough  to  say:  (1.)  We  did  not  set  out 
with  a  promise  to  demonstrate  the  being  of  God,  but  to 
vindicate  a  universal  faith.  This  we  claim  to  have  done 
by  arguments  which  ought  to  convince  you  and  which  are 
enough  to  condemn  you.  (2.)  Your  complaint  is  a  con- 
fession ;  for  when  you  seek  to  justify  your  disbelief  on  the 
ground  that  possibly  there  is  no  God,  you  virtually  confess 
that  the  question  of  God  is  at  least  immensely  probable. 
We  have  no  wish  to  discuss  the  question  whether  the 
existence  of  God  is  a  demonstrable  proposition.  We  ask 
you  simply  to  consider  the  peril  in  which  you  stand  when 
you  assume  the  responsibility  of  denying  the  existence  of  a 
Being  whom  you  must  one  day  face.  (3.)  Probability  is  the 
guide  of  life.  You  admit  this  in  other  matters  ;  why  do  you 
deny  it  in  this  ?  If  you  go  to  sea  on  a  raft  because  there  is  a 
bare  possibility  that  you  will  cross  the  ocean  safely,  you  act 
like  an  idiot.  If  you  persist  in  atheism  in  face  of  all  the 
evidence  of  God's  existence,  you  are  what  the  Bible  calls  a 
"fool." 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE,  17 

THE  EULE  OF  FAITH. 

Our  moral  nature  prompts  us  to  ask  many  questions,  and 
makes  us  impatient  until  they  are  answered.  What  is  the 
origin  of  the  human  race  ?  How  does  it  happen  that  sin 
is  universal  ?  What  is  the  character  of  the  Being  to  whom 
we  are  responsible?  May  we  trust  him,  or  must  we  be  in 
terror?  How  are  we  to  kuow^  what  is  right  and  what  is 
wrong,  since  the  judgments  of  men  conflict?  Are  we  im- 
mortal? Is  it  a  happy  hereafter  which  awaits  us?  Does 
that  depend  on  anything  which  we  can  do?  If  so,  what 
must  we  do  ? 

Whither  shall  we  go  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  these 
inquiries?  We  cannot  rest  until  we  find  some  standard  of 
truth  which  we  can  regard  as  infallible.  Where  are  we  to 
find  it?  In  your  reason,  says  one.  In  the  Church,  says 
another.  In  the  Bible,  says  a  third.  The  decisions  we 
reach  respecting  our  rule  of  faith  will  determine  whether 
we  shall  be  Rationalists,  Romanists  or  Protestants.  Let  ua 
consider  these  answers  in  the  order  mentioned. 

I.  Reason. 

There  are  two  ways  of  investing  reason  with  infallibility. 
A  man  may  say  that  he  needs  no  other  revelation  than  the 
light  of  his  own  intellect,  in  which  case  he  makes  reason 
the  source  of  knowledge;  or  he  may  say  that,  conceding  that 
the  Bible  contains  divine  revelations,  he  will  receive  nothing 
which  he  cannot  comprehend  or  which  conflicts  with  his 
sense  of  right,  in  which  case  he  makes  reason  the  criterion 
of  truth. 

To  one  who  denies  the  necessity  or  the  possibility  of  a 
revelation  we  should  reply  by  saying : 

1.  If  you  deny  that  God  can  or  will  give  a  revelation, 
2 


18  SmfMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

you  simply  make  yourself  a  pope  and  proclaim  your  infal- 
libility. Argument  with  you  is,  therefore,  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

2.  The  need  of  a  revelation  is  seen  in  the  conflicting 
opinions  which  men  entertain  respecting  fundamental  ques- 
tions. If  twelve  clocks  at  the  same  instant  indicate  a  dif- 
ferent hour,  it  is  certain  that  at  least  eleven  of  them  are 
wrong.  The  conflicting  verdicts  of  the  human  conscience 
on  matters  of  right  and  wrong  prove  that  without  a  reve- 
lation the  race  is  hopelessly  in  the  dark. 

3.  The  need  of  a  revelation  and  its  possibility  are  ques- 
tions which  are  set  aside  by  the  undoubted  fact  that  God 
has  given  a  revelation,  and  that  we  have  it  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  When  the  steam-engine  was  invented, 
it  was  argued  that  it  never  could  be  made  a  means  of  land- 
travel.     The  railroad  is  a  refutation  of  the  reasoning. 

When,  however,  the  rationalist  takes  the  position  that 
reason  is  the  criterion  by  which  we  are  to  decide  what  is  and 
what  is  not  properly  a  part  of  divine  revelation,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  remind  him  that  there  is  a  proper  and  an  improper 
exercise  of  reason  in  matters  of  religion.  If  a  man  were 
to  say  that  up  in  the  moon  two  and  two  make  five,  we  should 
deny  it  point  blank.  If  he  said  that  in  the  moon  there  is 
a  race  of  men  who  can  fly,  we  should  say,  Possibly ;  the 
thing  is  certainly  not  inconceivable.  This  illustrates  the 
first  prerogative  of  reason,  the  right  to  pronounce  against 
a  statement  which  contradicts  a  necessary  belief.  AVe  can- 
not believe  a  contradictory  proposition ;  we  cannot  believe 
that  an  event  occurred  without  some  cause  of  its  occurrence. 
We  cannot  believe  that  right  is  wrong  or  that  wrong  is 
right.  Any  book  that  asks  us  to  believe  these  things  asks 
an  impossibility,  asks  us  to  assent  to  unthinkable  proposi- 
tions, and  therefore  cannot  be  from  God.  Again,  the  Bible 
comes  to  us  as  a  revelation.  So  do  other  books — the  Koran, 
for  example.     Why  do  we  accept  the  Bible  and  reject  the 


SUMMABJ    OF  DOCTRINE.  1^ 

rest?  Bicause  the  Bibje  gives  evidence  of  being  a  divine 
revelation.  The  mind,  therefore,  must  be  allowed  to  weigh 
the  evidence  which  accredits  the  Bible  and  determine 
whether  it  is  adequate.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  deny 
that  there  is  any  reason  for  believing  one  alleged  revelation 
rather  than  another.  The  rationalist,  however,  wishes  the 
privilege  of  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  contents  of  Scrip- 
ture.    His  position  is  open  to  obvious  objections. 

1.  It  does  not  follow  that  a  doctrine  is  untrue  because  it 
is  incomprehensible.  The  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  rationalist  denies  it.  It  is  a  contradiction, 
he  says.  But  it  is  not  a  contradiction,  for  the  human  mind 
cannot  believe  a  contradiction,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  is  a  cardinal  one  in  the  Christian's  creed.  Incom- 
prehensible it  undoubtedly  is,  but  this  is  no  argument  against 
it,  unless,  indeed,  the  man  who  makes  it  is  omniscient. 

2.  A  man  has  no  right  to  settle  beforehand  what  God  may 
or  may  not  do,  and  then  condemn  the  Scriptures  because 
they  do  not  harmonize  with  his  view.  God  cannot  do  wrong, 
we  know\  But  what  may  be  wrong  for  us  to  do  may  not 
be  wrong  for  God  to  do.  It  may  be  wrong  for  a  man  to 
chastise  another  man's  child,  though  quite  proper  for  him 
to  punish  his  own.  We  have  no  right  to  kill  a  man ;  it 
does  not  follow,  though,  that  God  has  none.  The  rationalist 
raises  moral  objections  to  the  Bible  because  he  makes  the 
mistake  of  applying  to  God  the  laws  which  were  meant  to 
govern  the  relations  of  men. 

3.  We  must  not  form  our  judgment  of  God  by  the  light 
of  the  Bible,  and  at  the  same  time  criticise  the  Bible  by  our 
idea  of  God.  If  an  Eastern  prince  should  send  us  a  pack- 
age containing  a  letter  and  his  photograph,  it  might  be  well 
enough  to  take  the  necessary  means  of  satisfying  ourselves 
that  the  package  came  from  the  person  in  question.  But 
that  fact  being  ascertained,  we  must  take  the  photograph  as 
a  genuine  p'cture,  even  though  it  should  be  very  unlike 


20  SUMMARY   OF  DOCTRINE. 

what  we  would  have  expected.  Now,  the  Bible  is  a  por- 
trait, if  we  may  so  speak,  of  God.  We  learn  from  it  that 
God  is  just,  and  that  he  will  take  vengeance  on  those  who 
obey  not  the  gospel  of  his  Sou.  It  is  our  business  to  de- 
termine whether  the  Bible  gives  evidence  of  being  sent  to 
us  from  God  ;  but  having  satisfied  ourselves  of  that  fact,  it 
would  be  a  very  foolish  thing  to  reject  any  part  of  it  be- 
cause it  does  not  correspond  with  the  notions  we  had  formed 
of  God. 

II.  The  Church. 

Roman  Catholics  regard  the  Church  as  infallible  and 
her  teachings  as  authoritative.  They  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  are  infallible  and  inspired,  but  deny  that  they 
are  sufficient.  They  say  that  the  Church  is  the  custodian  of 
a  body  of  unwritten  truth  communicated  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  and  preserved  in  the  form  of  tradition.  But  how 
are  we  to  distinguish  between  true  and  false  traditions? 
Romanists  apply  the  tests  of  catholicity  and  antiquity: 
what  has  always  been  believed,  and  by  all  Christians,  is 
true.  The  peculiar  doctrines  of  Romanism  will  not  meet 
the  requirements  of  this  canon,  however,  and  the  only  way 
in  which  they  can  be  justified  is  to  fall  back  upon  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Church.  Romanists  claim  that  the  tradi- 
tions are  true  because  endorsed  by  an  infallible  Church. 
Romanism  therefore  stands  or  falls  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church's  infallibility.  Some  say  that  infallibility  resides 
in  the  pope  as  vicar  of  Christ,  and  others  in  the  Church, 
speaking  through  the  majority  of  her  bishops.  A  word  or 
two,  first,  on  the  general  question  of  infallibility: 

1.  Proof  of  infallibility  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
impossible,  for  the  appeal  must  be  made  either  to  Scrip- 
ture or  to  tradition.  The  Scripture  cannot  be  cited  to 
prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  for  a  favorife  point 
which    the   Romanists    make    against   Protestants   is   that 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  21 

we  have  no  infallible  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  If 
the  Romanist  is  correct  in  this  argument,  it  applies  with 
equal  force  to  himself.  He  cannot  appeal  to  the  Scriptures 
to  sustain  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  ;  and  if  he  does,  he 
must  assume  that  his  Church  is  infalli)3le  in  order  that  he 
may  have  an  infallible  interpretation  of  those  passages  of 
Scriptures  on  which  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  based. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  cannot  appeal  to  tradition,  for  his  be- 
lief that  a  particular  tradition  is  true  depends  upon  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Church  which  holds  the  tradition.  Ro- 
man Catholic  reasoning  is  proverbially  circular.  The  ap- 
peal is  to  tradition  to  support  infallibility,  and  to  infallibil- 
ity to  certify  tradition. 

2.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  not  infallible,  because  it  con- 
tradicts the  Scriptures  ;  and  the  Scriptures,  it  concedes,  are 
infallible.  The  Bible  teaches  that  only  God  can  forgive 
sins ;  Rome  says  the  priest  can.  The  Bible  says,  Worship 
God  only  ;  Rome  says,  Worship  the  Virgin  Mary  too.  The 
Bible  says  there  is  one  Mediator ;  Rome  says  every  priest 
is  a  mediator.  The  Bible  says  that  Christ  offered  himself 
once  for  all ;  Rome  pretends  to  repeat  the  sacrifice  in  cele- 
brating the  eucharist.  The  Bible  says  we  are  justified  by 
faith ;  Rome  says  we  are  justified  by  baptism.  If  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  infallible  and  the  Bible  is  infallible,  we 
have  two  iuflillibilities  contradicting  each  other. 

But  there  are  special  difficulties  connected  with  the  infalli 
bility  of  the  pope  and  the  infallibility  of  the  bishops  or  of 
general  councils.  The  doctrine  of  the  pope's  infallibility  ia 
attended  with  difficulties  like  the  following : 

(1.)  It  is  not  certain  whether  the  infallibility  of  the  pope 
follows  from  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  oi  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Church  from  the  infallibility  of  the  pope. 
Archbishop  Manning  holds  the  latter  opinion.  "  The  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church  is  not  to  test  the  teaching  of  the  pontiff 


22  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRTNE. 

by  the  assent  of  the  Church,  but  to  take  the  doctrines  of  the 
pontiff  as  the  test  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church."  A  writer 
in  the  Catholic  World  takes  the  other  view,  and  says :  "  The 
infallibility  of  the  pope  is  implicitly  contained  in  and  logic- 
ally concluded  from  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  in  gen- 
eral." *  And  Archbishop  Manning  himself  turns  round  and 
appeals  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  to  certify  the  le- 
gitimacy, and  therefore  the  infallibility,  of  the  pope.  He 
saysf  "that  St.  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome,  .  .  .  that  the 
Council  of  Trent  and  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  are 
oecumenical — that  is, legitimately  celebrated  and  confirmed; 
that  Pius  IX.  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  by  legitimate 
election.  These  truths  are  not  revealed,  .  .  .  yet  they  are 
so  necessary  to  the  order  of  faith  that  the  whole  would  be 
undermined  if  they  were  not  infallibly  certain.  But  such 
infallible  certainty  is  impossible  by  means  of  human  history 
and  human  evidence  alone.  It  is  created  only  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church." 

(2.)  Some  important  gaps  in  history  must  be  filled  before 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  pope  is  infallible. 

(a.)  It  does  not  appear  in  the  New  Testament  that  Peter 
had  any  primacy  among  the  apostles.  Romanists  base  the 
doctrine  on  Matt.  xvi.  18 :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church."  J  We  know,  however,  that  Peter 
did  not  lay  any  claim  to  precedence,  nor  was  any  accorded 
to  him  by  the  other  apostles.  He  writes,  "The  elders  who 
are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder."  He  did 
not  preside  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  Paul,  on  one  oc- 
casion, withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed. 

{b.)  It  cannot  be  shown  that  Peter  was  ever  in  Rome. 

*  Catholic  World  for  August,  1871. 
t  Petri  Privilegium. 

X  For  an  exposition  of  this  verse  see  Lange's  Commentary  and 
Notes. 


SUMMARY   OF  DOCTRINE.  23 

(c.)  And  if  it  could,  it  would  not  follow  that  he  had  any 
successors. 

(d.)  And  if  he  had  successors,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
prove  that  Pope  Pius  IX.  is  the  legitimate  occupant  of  the 
papal  chair. 

(e.)  The  advocates  of  papal  infallibility  are  confronted 
with  the  damaging  fact  that  the  sixth  general  council, 
A.  D.  680,  anathematized  Pope  Honorius  as  a  heretic. 

The  Gallican  party  in  the  Church  of  Rome  deny  that  the 
pope  is  infallible,  but  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church — that  is  to  say,  they  believe  that  the  decisions  of  a 
majority  of  the  bishops  are  infallible.  This  position,  how- 
ever, is  as  untenable  as  that  of  the  Ul tramontanes  just  no- 
ticed. 

(1.)  It  is  assumed  that  the  "Church,"' to  whom  promises 
are  given  and  on  whom  privileges  are  conferred,  is  a 
visible  organization,  and  is  composed  of  those  who  are  in 
subjection  to  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Christ  promised  that 
the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  his  Church. 
The  Church  is  said  to  be  his  body,  the  fullness  of  Him  who 
filleth  all  in  all.  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  him- 
self for  it  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  his  blood,  that  he  might  present  it  to 
himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  a  spot  or  wrinkle,  or 
any  such  thing,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  these  statements  refer  to 
any  visible  organization,  and  far  less  that  that  organization 
is  the  Church  of  Rome.  We  know,  moreover,  that  these 
statements  do  not  refer  to  any  visible  Church;  they  are  true 
of  no  one  organization  as  such.  They  are  true,  however,  of 
all  believers  as  such,  and  no  organization  has  a  monopoly 
of  them. 

(2.)  The  promises  of  Christ  do  not  imply  infallibility.  It 
is  not  denied  that  the  New  Testament  sometimes  uses  the 
word   church  to  convey  the  idea  of  visible  organization, 


24  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

though  in  the  passages  which  are  most  relied  on  by  Roman 
ists  we  know  it  has  not  that  signification.  Our  Lord 
evidently  has  referred  to  the  local  organization  in  Matt, 
xviii.  15,  when  he  speaks  of  church  discipline  and  says . 
"  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven."  But  his  promises,  whether  referring  to 
visible  societies  of  Christians  or  to  Christians  as  members 
of  his  invisible  Church,  never  imply  that  those  to  whom 
they  were  made  were  to  be  preserved  from  error. 

(3.)  No  argument  for  the  infallibility  of  the  Church — i.  e., 
the  bishops — can  be  based  on  apostolic  succession. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  bishops  are  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  have  the  gifts  of  the  apostles.  But  the  New  Tes- 
tament gives  every  evidence  that  the  apostolic  office  was 
special,  and  did  not  survive  when  the  original  twelve  passed 
away.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  had  any  successors, 
and  those  who  claim  apostolic  honors  do  not  have  the 
"signs"  which  accredited  those  whom  Christ  ordained. 
They  cannot  work  miracles,  nor  are  they  inspired,  nor  have 
they  seen  the  Lord.  But  the  exclusive  claims  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  and  the  Anglo-Catholic  communions  rest 
upon  the  absurd  figment  of  apostolic  succession. 

If,  however,  the  Church  is  infallible  because  the  bishops 
are  successors  of  the  apostles,  the  infallibility  of  the  bish- 
ops should  be  analogous  to  that  of  the  apostles.  The 
latter  were  infallible  as  teachers  because  they  were  in- 
spired. Their  infallibility  was  individual  and  not  collect- 
ive Romanists  do  not  claim  that  each  bishop  is  infallible, 
but  that  a  majority  of  fallible  opinions  in  a  general  council 
amounts  to  an  infallible  decision. 

(4.)  The  Church  of  Rome  is  in  a  dilemma. 

For  if  the  council  was  infallible  which  anathematized 
Pope  Honorius,  the  pope  cannot  be  above  a  general  council, 
nor  can  he  be  infallible.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  pope  is 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  25 

infallible,  the  council  did  wrong  in  anathematizing  Hono- 
rius,  and  must  be  fallible.  And  yet,  again,  if  a  general 
council  may  be  fallible,  of  what  value  is  the  decision  of 
the  Vatican  council  which  declared  the  pope  to  be  infal- 
lible? 

In  the  light  of  history,  therefore,  the  claim  of  infallibility 
for  either  pope  or  council  is  ridiculous. 

III.  The  Bible. 

Protestants  deny  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  take  the 
Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Is  it  an  in- 
fallible rule?  Let  us  mark  the  steps  which  lead  to  an 
affirmative  answer  to  this  question. 

1.  The  historic  credibility  of  the  Bible  is  a  settled  ques- 
tion. The  books  of  Moses  were  written  by  Moses.  The 
Gospels  are  genuine  biographies,  and  were  written  by  the 
men  whose  names  they  bear.  What  is  true  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  of  the  Gospels  is  true  of  all  the  other  books  of 
the  Bible.  The  Scriptures  have  been  subjected  to  the  se 
verest  criticism,  and  their  authenticity  has  been  placed  be- 
yond question.  The  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures  as 
literary  documents  we  therefore  take  as  granted. 

2.  The  Bible  gives  us  a  great  deal  of  information  respect- 
ing God  and  his  relations  to  men,  which  w^e  find  nowhere 
else.  The  most  cursory  study  of  it  will  convince  us  of  this. 
We  find  in  it  accounts  of  miracles  which  God  did,  and 
which  show  the  close  relation  subsisting  between  God  and 
his  covenant  people.  Then,  the  Bible  contains  accounts  of 
communications  from  God  to  men,  and  some  of  them  are 
very  extended.  A  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament  coiv 
Bists  of  prophetic  utterances  prefaced  with  the  expression : 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  And,  finally,  the  Bible  contains 
doctrines  which  carry  on  their  face  the  evidences  of  divine 
authorship,  because  they  meet  so  exactly  the  wants  of  the 
human  heart  and  are  in  such  strong  contrast  with  all  hu- 


26  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

man  efforts  to  supply  them.  The  doctrine  of  expiation  by 
an  incarnate  God  may  be  taken  as  an  example. 

A  large  part  of  the  Bible  being  a  written  account  of  what 
God  did  and  said,  we  may  properly  say  that  it  contains  the 
word  of  God. 

3.  The  whole  Bible  is  God's  message.  This  is  another 
step  in  advance.  The  Bible  was  not  written  simply  be- 
cause it  occurred  to  several  writers  to  put  on  record  the  facts 
in  their  possession  or  to  reduce  to  writing  their  religious 
sentiments.  God  designed  it  to  be  an  authorized  message 
from  him  to  men.  Several  considerations  point  to  this  con- 
clusion. The  official  standing  of  some  of  the  writers — Mo- 
ses, for  instance — would  bespeak  official  value  for  what  they 
wrote.  And  then,  the  Bible  being  the  only  means  of 
making  known  the  way  of  salvation,  we  may  presume  that 
it  was  designed  to  be  an  official  communication.  For,  if  it 
was  not,  there  was  no  official  communication,  and  we  are 
left  to  believe  that,  although  the  scheme  of  redemption  was 
of  sufficient  importance  to  engage  the  thought  of  God,  it  is 
due  to  accident  that  an  account  of  it  has  been  preserved. 
Besides,  the  Bible  is  an  organism.  The  several  books  stand 
in  designed  relation  to  one  body  of  truth,  and  the  whole  body 
is  animated  by  the  same  spirit. 

Parts  of  the  Bible  we  know  were  written  by  express  com- 
mand of  God — the  Pentateuch,  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah, 
the  Apocalypse,  for  example.  The  books  of  Moses  are  fre- 
quently  quoted  as  the  law  of  the  Lord.  Christ  referred 
to  the  Old  Testament  as  authoritative.  Peter  says  that  the 
things  which  were  written  aforetime  were  written  for  our 
Learning.  The  repeated  occurrence  of  expressions  like  "  It 
is  written,"  "  What  saith  the  Scripture,"  "The  Scripture 
saith,"  shows  that  writers  of  the  New  Testam.ent  regarded  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  divine  message. 

4.  The  Bible  is  infallible.  We  should  expect  that  God 
would  protect  his  message  against  the  errors  which  are  in- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  27 

cident  to  mere  human  authorship.  We  should  naturally 
suppose  that  no  unauthorized  books  would  be  allowed  a  place 
in  the  sacred  canon.  The  references  to  the  Old  Testament 
which  we  find  in  the  New  confirm  this  judgment.  All  the 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  put  on  the  same  level.  No 
difference  of  rank  or  value  is  recognized.  They  are  all  em- 
braced in  the  same  titles,  and  the  titles  indicate  their  sacred 
character  :  The  Scriptures,  The  Holy  Scriptures,  The  Hal- 
lowed AVritiugs,  The  Oracles  of  God. 

The  greatest  deference  is  paid  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
writers  of  the  New.  Incidental  circumstances  in  the  life  of 
our  Lord  are  spoken  of  as  fulfillments  of  prophecy.  This 
cannot  be  accounted  for  on  any  other  supposition  than  that 
the  evangelists  believed  in  the  verbal  infallibility  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Our  Lord  himself  asserts  the  infallibility 
of  the  Old  Testament :  "  The  Scriptures  must  be  fulfilled." 
"  The  Scriptures  cannot  be  broken."  "All  things  must  be 
fulfilled  which  are  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  in  the 
Prophets  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning  me."  Moreover,  the 
verbal  references  to  the  Old  Testament  which  we  find  in  the 
writings  of  Paul  prove  that  he  and  the  Jewish  people  gen- 
erally believed  in  the  verbal  infallibility  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Unless  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  extended  to  its 
words,  the  apostle  would  not  have  been  justified  in  making  a 
single  word  the  premise  of  a  syllogism.  He  did  so,  how- 
ever, in  more  instances  than  one,  and  we  must  conclude  that 
Paul  reasoned  falsely  or  that  the  Old  Testament  is  verbally 
infallible. 

5.  The  Old  Testament  is  declared  to  be  of  divine  author- 
ship. 

Passages  are  cited  from  Scripture  as  the  words  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Heb.  iii.  7  :  "  Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Ghost 
saith,  To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your 
hearts."  Acts  iv.  24  :  "And  when  they  heard  that,  they 
lifted   up  their  voice  to  God  with  one   accord,  and    said. 


28  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

Lord,  thou  art  God,  which  hast  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and 
the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is  ;  who,  by  the  mouth  of  thy  ser- 
vant David  hast  said,  Why  did  the  heathen  rage,  and  the  peo- 
ple imagine  a  vain  thing?"  Acts  i.  16 :  "And  in  those  days 
Peter  stood  up  .  .  .  and  said,  .  .  .  Men  and  brethren,  this 
scripture  must  needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas." 
2  Peter  i.  20 :  "  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  the 
poripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  for  the  prophecy 
came  not  in  old  time  of  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of 
old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2  Tim. 
iii.  15,  16 :  "And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the 
holy  scriptures,  w^hich  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salva- 
tion through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 

"  The  New  Testament  canonizes  the  Old,  the  incarnate 
Word  sets  his  seal  on  the  written  word.  The  incar- 
nate Word  is  God,  therefore  the  inspiration  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  authenticated  by  God  himself."*  It  will  not 
require  much  evidence  to  convince  one  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  New  Testament  who  believes  in  that  of  the  Old.  It 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  it  evidently  forms  part 
of  God's  revelation  and  is  necessary  to  the  full  exhibi- 
tion of  the  gospel  scheme.  Our  Lord,  however,  promised 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  to  guide  the  apostles:  "The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you  in  the  same  hour  what  ye 
ought  to  say."  Luke  xii.  12  "For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak, 
but  the  Holy  Ghost."  Mark  xiii.  11.  And  Paul  says  (1 
Cor.  ii.  13),  "  "Which  things  also  we  speak  not  in  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth."  If  the  apostles  were  preserved  against  error  in 
their  oral  utterances,  how  much  more  may  we  suppose  them 
to  have  been  inspired  in  writing  what  was  to  shape  the 
Church's  faith  in  all  time!  We  know,  however,  that  Peter 
*  Wordsworth  on  the  Canon,  p.  51,  Am.  Ed. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  29 

placed  the  writings  of  Paul  on  a  level  with  the  inspired 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament :  "  Even  as  our  beloved 
brother  Paul  also,  according  to  the  wisdom  given  unto  him, 
hath  written  unto  you,  as  also  in  all  his  epistles,  speaking  in 
them  of  these  things ;  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be 
understood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned  and  unsta- 
ble wrest,  as  they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own 
destruction."  2  Peter  hi.  15-17. 

The  Bible,  therefore,  not  only  contains  the  word  of  God, 
but  it  is  the  word  of  God. 

It  is  infallible  because  it  is  inspired.  The  Holy  Ghost  in- 
fluenced the  sacred  writers  to  such  an  extent  that  what  they 
said,  God  said.  His  influence,  however,  did  not  destroy 
their  individuality  or  abridge  their  liberty.  It  made  them 
infallible  as  teachers,  but  not  perfect  as  Christians.  Inspi- 
ration is  one  thing,  sanctificalion  another. 

The  Bible  is  a  human  book ;  it  is  also  a  divine  book.  It 
had  human  authors ;  it  has  a  divine  Author.  Moses  wrote 
history;  David  wrote  psalms;  Paul  wrote  letters.  Sup- 
pose there  were  no  inspiration  guiding  these  writers.  Moses 
might  still  have  remembered  his  interviews  with  God,  and 
have  written  them  out  with  tolerable  accuracy.  He  might 
still  have  been  a  trustworthy  historian  of  the  Exodus, 
though  we  could  not  feel  sure  that  he  had  incorporated  no 
errors  in  his  books.  David,  being  a  religious  man,  might 
have  written  pious  psalms,  as  religious  men  have  since  done, 
but  he  might  have  put  wrong  sentiments  in  them  too ;  for 
good  as  he  was,  he  was  far  from  perfect.  Paul  might  have 
written  his  doctrinal  Epistles,  and  there  would  have  been 
good  reason  for  believing  that  Paul  knew  what  was  true  and 
what  was  false.  But  Paul  may  nevertheless  have  had 
some  wrong  views,  and  we  could  not  tell  but  what  these  views 
were  expressed  in  his  letters.  The  Bible  might  still  contain 
a  great  deal  of  valuable  information  regarding  God  and  our 
relations  to  him,  but  it  would  not  be  infallible. 


30  SUM3IABY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

But  God  is  also  the  author  of  Scripture.  God  writes  his- 
tory. The  history  must  tlierefore  be  true  in  every  detail. 
God  writes  psahus.  The  psalms  must  therefore  express- 
proper  religious  feelings.  God  writes  letters.  The  letters 
can  give  no  unwise  counsel,  contain  no  false  reasoning, 
propagate  no  false  doctrine. 

The  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  is  one 
of  practical  and  fundamental  importance. 


SIN. 
The  whole  Bible  is  summed  up  in  two  words :  Sin  and 
Salvation.  It  is  w'ith  the  first  of  these  that  we  have  now  to 
deal.  The  subject  is  very  important;  for  the  conclusions  we 
reach  regarding  sin  will  affect  our  opinions  in  respect  to  the 
atonement.  It  is  also  very  wide.  In  the  discussion  of  it 
four  distinct  inquiries  arise,  each  of  which  has  been  the 
subject  of  many  volumes  and  much  debate.-  These  inquir- 
ies concern:  (1.)  The  nature  of  sin.  (2.)  Inability.  (3.) 
Original  sin.     (4.)  Adamic  relation. 

I.  Nature  of  Sin. 
Is  sin  a  misfortune,  or  is  it  a  fault?  Is  it  a  disease  which 
ensures  suffering,  or  is  it  an  offence  which  deserves  punish- 
ment? Is  salvation  cure  or  pardon?  Our  Shorter  Catechism 
says:  "Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto,  or  transgression 
of,  the  law  of  God."  This  statement  accords  with  the  voice 
of  conscience  and  the  w^ord  of  God.  Violation  of  law  is 
implied  in  the  idea  if  doing  wrong.  Sense  of  guilt  is  the 
feeling  that  punishment  is  deserved.  A  crime  may  prove 
a  blunder,  for  it  may  cost  a  man  his  liberty;  and  being  a 
blunder,  he  may  regret  that  he  committed  it.     But  this  is  a 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  31 

very  cliffereDt  feeling  from  that  which  a  man  entertains 
when  he  realizes  that  he  did  wrong  and  deserves  punish- 
ment. Punishment  may  have  a  very  salutary  effect  upon 
the  criminal,  or  it  may  deter  others  from  committing  a  sim- 
ilar offence.  But  neither  the  reformatory  nor  the  deter- 
rent element  of  punishment  exhausts  the  idea  which  the 
word  suggests.  We  feel  that  justice  requires  that  the  of- 
fender shall  suffer— that  he  deserves  to  suffer. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Bible,  we  shall  find  that  sin  is  spoken 
of  as  related  to  law.    Man's  first  sin  was  disobedience.    The 
relation  subsisting  between  God  and  man,  even  when  man 
was  innocent,  was  that  of  ruler  and  ruled— of  sovereign  and 
subject.     Great  injustice  is  done  the  book  of  Genesis  when 
men  regard  God  exclusively  as  our  Father,  and  forget  he 
IS  our  King.     The  nature  of  sin  is  clearly  seen  in  God's 
treatment  of  it.     The  pain  which  the  child  suffers  when  he 
burns  his  finger  is  not  punishment,  nor  is  its  removal  par- 
don.    Sin  is  always  spoken  of,  however,  as  being  punished 
or  pardoned.     The  suffering  which  follows  it  is  a  judicial 
infliction.     Confession   of  sm  presupposes  this.     We  pray 
for  forgiveness,  not  for  cure.     The  heathen  are  proven  to 
be  under  condemnation  though  they  never  had  the  law  of 
Moses ;  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  and  are  judged  on 
the  ground  that  they  violated  the  law  written  on  the  heart. 
"  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by 
nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these  having  not 
the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves.    Which  show  the  work 
of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  also 
bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing, 
or  else  excusing  one  another."  Rom.  ii.  14,  15. 

"  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law."   1  John  in.  4. 
Sin  exposes  us  to  punishment.     The  punishment  of  sin 
is  death-death  temporal,  death   spiritual,  death  eternal. 
Salvation  must  mean,  therefore,  deliverance  from  condem- 
nation.    It  may  inchide  more  than  this ;  it  does,  as  we  shall 


32  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

see,  but  it  must  assure  us  of  pardon,  or  it  is  not  salvation 
The  word  used  to  express  the  idea  of  exposure  to  punish- 
ment is  guilt.  A  religion  which  does  not  tell  us  how  we 
may  be  free  from  guilt  does  us  no  good.  It  may  have 
many  excellencies,  it  may  inculcate  pure  morals,  but  it 
leaves  us  under  condemnation. 

II.  Inability. 

All  men  sin.  They  have  all  gone  out  of  the  way.  There 
is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one.  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin, 
we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us.  We  begin 
to  sin  when  we  begin  to  speak.  As  soon  as  children  per- 
form rational  acts  they  show  signs  of  sinful  dispositions. 
They  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies. 

Sin  IS  a  tyrant.  Even  Christians  are  not  altogether  free 
from  its  dominion.  "  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the 
inward  man,  but  I  see  another  law  m  my  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity 
to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members."  Rom.  vii.  22, 
23. 

How  is  the  universality  of  sin  to  be  explained?  How  is 
its  power  to  be  accounted  for?  There  are  three  answers: 
The  Pelagian,  the  Semi-Pelagian,  and  the  Augustinian. 

The  Pelagian  says  that  man  is  well,  that  he  has  full 
ability  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him,  and  that  sin  is  due 
to  the  effect  that  he  exercises  the  power  of  a  free  agent  and 
chooses  to  sin. 

This  is  contradicted  by  conscience,  and  opposed  to  the 
Bible.  We  know  that  we  ought  to  do  what  it  is  out  of 
our  power  to  do.  Paul  said  he  could  not  do  the  things  he 
would.  The  drunkard  knows  he  ought  to  be  sober,  but  he 
is  the  slave  of  appetite.  Besides,  it  does  not  explain  the 
fact  that  all  men  do  sin  to  say  that  they  can  sin.  The  Pela- 
gian sees  the  tree  of  humanity  bearing  evil  fruit,  but  fails 
to  apply  the  principle  fi'rnished  by  our  Lord. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  33 

The  Semi-Pelagian  says  that  man  is  sich  and  needs  di- 
vine assistance,  though  he  believes  that  he  may  repent  of 
his  sins  and  turn  to  God  under  the  influence  of  persuasion, 
and  without  divine  influence.  And  it  must  be  confessed 
that  he  can  repent  and  believe  if  he  is  disposed  to  do  so. 
The  difficulty  is,  however,  that  he  has  no  disposition  to  re- 
pent and  believe,  and  will  have  none  until  influenced  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.     This  is  the  opinion  of  the  third  class. 

The  Augustinian  believes  that  man  is  dead,  and  spiritu- 
ally can  do  nothing  good.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Con- 
fession: "From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled  aud  made  opposite  to  all  good, 
and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions." chap,  vi.,  §  4.  Again,  "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a 
state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural 
man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  good  and  dead  in 
sin,  is  not  able  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself  or 
prepare  himself  thereunto."  chap,  ix.,  §3. 

This  doctrine  we  believe  to  be  true — 

(1.)  Because  it  serves  best  to  explain  the  universality  of 
sin  and  its  controlling  power. 

(2.)  Because  faith  aud  repentance  are  spoken  of  in  Scrip- 
ture as  the  gifts  of  God : 

"By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of 
yourselves :  it  is  the  gift  of  God."  Eph.  ii.  8.  "  For  unto 
you  it  is  given  in  behalf  of  Christ  not  only  to  believe  in 
iiim,  but  also  to  sufl'er  for  his  sake."  Phil.  i.  29.  "Then 
hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
Acts  xi.  18.  "  If  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repent- 
ance to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth."  2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

(3.)  Because  the  doctrine  is  more  or  less  directly  affirmed 
in  the  Scriptures: 

"  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who  hath  sent 
me  draw  him."  John  vi.  44.    "And  you  hath  he  quickened 


34  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

who  were  dead  m  trespasses  and  sins."  Eph.  ii.  1.  "The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  and  is  not  subject  to  the 
law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  Rom.  viii.  7.  "  The 
natural  man  discerneth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  neither  can  he  know  them 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  we  need  more  than  pardon. 
Salvation  must  deliver  us  from  the  guilt,  and  also  from  the 
power,  of  sin.  It  must  change  our  legal  condition,  and 
also  transform  our  character.  The  one  is,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  work  of  Christ,  the  other  that  of  the  Spirit. 

III.  Original  Sin. 

A  man  may  say :  "  I  admit  that  I  am  so  constituted  that 
I  must  certainly  sin.  But  am  I  under  condemnation  on 
account  of  the  corruption  of  my  nature,  from  which  actual 
trangression  proceeds  ?"  Our  standards  answer  this  question 
affirmatively.  The  Catechism  calls  the  corruption  of  our 
nature  "original  sin,"  and  the  Confession  (ch.  vi.)  says: 
"  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgres- 
sion of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto, 
doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,"  etc. 

This  is  true — 1.  Because  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
account  for  our  being  responsible  for  actual  transgression, 
if  we  are  not  responsible  for  the  corrupt  nature  from  which 
all  actual  transgressions  do  proceed.  The  readiest  way  of 
explaining  our  responsibility  for  sins  which  our  inability 
rendered  certain  is  to  suppose  that  we  are  accountable  for 
our  inability. 

2.  Because  it  is  involved  in  our  idea  of  character.  The 
fact  that  a  bad  act  is  the  indication  of  a  wicked  heart 
makes  it  all  the  more  heinous  in  our  sight.  So  far  from  a 
bad  disposition  being  an  apology  for  malicious  conduct,  the 
disposition  itself  is  the  object  of  our  reprehension. 

Moreover,  we  are  conscious  of  and  pray  to  be  delivered 


SUM3fAIlY  OF  DOCTRINE.  35 

from  evil  thoughts  and  feelings  which  are  not  under  our 
control,  but  which  have  moral  quality,  nevertheless. 

3.  Because  sins  of  omission  are  heinous  as  well  as  sins 
of  commission.  We  are  responsible  not  only  for  doing 
what  we  ought  not  to  have  done,  but  for  not  doing  what  we 
ought  to  have  done.  We  ought  to  be  perfectly  holy,  and  we 
are  not,  and  cannot  be.  This  cannot  be  explained  without 
supposing  that  we  are  responsible  for  our  corrupt  nature.* 

4.  Because  physical  death  is  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin, 
and  infants  die  who  have  not  been  guilty  of  actual  trans- 
gression. **  And  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned."  Rom.  v.  12. 

5.  Because  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  it :  We  are 
by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others.  "  For  I 
was  born  in  iniquity;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me."  Ps.  li.  5.  "  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs 
of  thistles  ?  Even  so  every  good  tree  bringeth  forth  good 
fruit ;  but  a  corruj^t  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  A  good 
tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt 
tree  bring  forth  good  fruit."  Matt.  vii.  16-19.t 

IV.  Adamic  Relation. 

But  how  do  we  become  responsible  for  the  corruption  of 
our  nature?  We  find  the  solution  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  There  it  is  distinctly  stated  that 
the  cause  of  our  transgression  was  Adam's  sin.  By  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners.  By  the 
offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto  con- 
demnation. 

^  See  Shedd  on  the  sin  of  omission,  in  "  Sermons  to  the  Natural 
Man." 

f  These  verses  were  his  [Augustine's]  weapon  against  the  shallow 
Pelagian  scheme,  which  would  look  at  men's  deeds  apart  from  the 
living  root  in  man  out  of  which  they  grew,  and  suppose  that  man's 
unaided  will  is  capable  of  good. — Alford,in  he. 


36  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

Our  Catechism  says :  "  The  covenant  being  made  with 
A.dara  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  all 
mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation, 
sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in  his  first  transgression." 
In  the  explanation  of  this  relation  there  is  considerable  dif- 
ference of  opinion  among  divines  in  our  Church;  some  hold 
that  Adam,  being  a  sinner,  begat  children  in  his  own  like- 
ness— that  is  to  say,  with  corrupt  natures ;  that,  having  cor- 
rupt natures,  they  are  under  condemnation  on  that  account. 
Others  hold  that  there  is  a  oneness  of  relation  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  so  that  what  he  did  they  did,  and  what  he 
suffered  they  shared.  This  oneness  is  by  some  held  to  be  a 
realistic  oneness — that  is,  a  oneness  in  the  sense  that  we  were 
actually  in  Adam  when  he  sinned,  and  actually  committed 
the  offence.  By  others  it  is  held  to  be  a  federal  oneness — that 
is  to  say,  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  the  race,  and 
what  he  did  was  accounted  as  being  done  by  his  posterity. 
Spiritual  death  or  inability  is  alike  in  the  case  of  Adam  and 
his  posterity  the  punishment  of  sin  as  well  as  sin  itself. 

The  inquirer  will  naturally  ask  how  it  can  be  that  the 
fortunes  of  the  race  have  been  staked  upon  the  conduct  of 
one.  Our  inability  to  answer  this  question  does  not 
affect  the  fact  that  this  is  nevertheless  the  teaching  of 
Scripture.  It  is  our  duty  to  accept  the  truth  on  God's  au- 
thority. This,  however,  may  be  said — that,  considering  the 
way  in  which  the  race  is  perpetuated,  no  fairer  probation 
can  be  conceived  than  that  which  the  human  race  had  in 
Adam,  who  was  created  in  full  possession  of  his  faculties 
and  in  the  image  of  God.  It  is  a  blessed  thought,  moreover, 
that  where  sin  abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  37 


THE  ATONEMENT. 
Sin  has  been  attended  with  two  ruinous  results.     It  has 
exposed  the  race  to  condemnation,  and  it  has  debased  its 
nature.      Salvation    is    therefore    a    twofold    deliverance. 
This  is  beautifully  expressed  in  Toplady's  lines : 

*'Be  of  sin  the  double  cure, 
Cleanse  me  from  its  guilt  and  power." 

Now,  all  who  profess  to  be  Christians  regard  Jesus  as  the 
Saviour.  What  do  we  mean,  however,  when  we  say  that 
Jesus  is  the  Saviour?  What  has  he  done  to  justify  the 
use  of  this  name?  Different  answers  are  given  to  these 
questions.  They  may  all  be  grouped,  however,  under  two 
heads,  the  Socinian  and  the  sacrificial  views.  These  two 
are  the  poles  apart.  They  are  so  different  as  really  to  con- 
stitute two  different  religions.  According  to  the  one  view, 
Christ  is  our  Saviour  because  he  influences  us  by  his  ex- 
ample, teaching,  sympathy  or  otherwise,  to  lead  a  better 
life.  Similarly,  a  drunkard  might  call  a  man  bis  saviour 
by  whose  influence  he  was  induced  to  become  sober  and 
abstinent. 

The  other  view  regards  Christ  as  our  Saviour  because  he 
died  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins.  It  considers  the  effect  of 
Christ's  work  to  be  mainly  that  of  expiating  our  guilt  by 
his  own  death,  and  so  delivering  us  from  condemnation. 

,'  I.  The  Socinian  View. 

Under  this  head  are  classed  all  who  hold  that  the  saving 
work  of  Christ  consists  in  the  efl^ect  produced  upon  our 
personal  conduct,  and  who  ignore  or  deny  the  fact  that  his 
death  is  the  ground  of  pardon.  It  includes,  we  regret  to 
say,  some  who  believe  in  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ, 
though  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  men  can  believe  that  Christ 


38  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

is  God,  and  at  the  same  time  take  this  low  view  of  his 
work. 

1.  Humanitarians  say  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man.  He 
taught  and  practiced  a  pure  morality.  He  met  death  in 
the  attempt  to  overthrow  a  false  system.  He  bore  witness 
to  the  truth,  and  died  a  martyr.  This  is  simple  enough, 
certainly ;  and  if  true,  the  wonder  is  that  Paul  ever  said, 
"Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness."  There  would  be  no 
mystery  about  it. 

2.  Others  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  Jesus,  though  a  crea- 
ture, was  far  above  every  other  creature,  that  he  existed 
before  he  became  incarnate,  that  he  came  to  bear  God's 
message,  to  disclose  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  to  preach 
a  pure  faith  and  be  an  example  of  a  spotless  life.  His 
death  was  didactic.  It  was  to  teach  us  the  lesson  of  self- 
sacrifice,  and  Avas  that  of  a  hero. 

3.  Some  believe  in  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ,  but 
still  believe  that  his  saving  influence  consisted  in  supplying 
us  with  new  motives  for  living  a  better  life.  He  not  only 
became  incarnate  that  he  might  be  an  embodiment  of  per- 
fect manhood,  but  he  entered  into  partnership  with  us  in 
the  trials  of  life  in  order  that  he  might  win  us  by  his  sym- 
pathy, and  induce  us  to  leave  our  sins  and  lead  a  holy  life. 
His  death  was  a  dramatic  exhibition  of  his  sympathy. 

4.  And  there  is  a  class  of  mystical  thinkers  who  main- 
tain, with  those  already  mentioned,  the  subjective  view  of 
Christ's  saving  work,  though  they  hold  that  the  improved 
conduct  of  the  Christian  is  not  the  effect  of  example,  and 
is  not  the  result  of  moral  suasion,  but  is  the  result  of  a  par- 
taking, in  some  mysterious  way,  of  the  life  of  Christ. 

Differing  though  these  classes  do  from-  one  another,  we 
can  see  at  a  glance  that  they  all  identify  salvation  with 
personal  holiness,  or,  rather,  with  reformation.  The  objec- 
tions, therefore,  which  follow  are  to  be  urged  against  them 
all. 


SUiMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  89 

1.  The  SociDian  view  assumes  that  God  will  pardon  men 
on  condition  of  repentance  and  reformation.  This  is  alto- 
gether contrary  to  Scripture.  It  teaches  that  condemna- 
tion is  universal.  "  Judgment  hath  come  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,"  that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all 
the  world  become  guilty  before  God.  This  condemnation 
is  everlasting,  for  it  stands  in  contrast  with  the  everlast- 
ing life  which  Christ  gives ;  and  those  who  reject  that  shall 
never  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  them. 
From  this  condemnation  it  is  impossible  for  men  to  be  de- 
livered by  works  of  the  law.  "  Therefore,  by  works  of  the 
law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight." 

2.  This  view  identifies  salvation  with  good  conduct,  but 
makes  no  provision  for  our  deliverance  from  the  bondage 
of  sin. 

Let  it  be  granted  that  if  we  are  holy  God  will  forgive 
us.  How  are  we  to  be  holy  ?  Men  do  not  love  holiness ; 
they  are,  by  virtue  of  their  depravity,  "  made  opposite  to 
all  good."  Good  example  and  a  high  standard  will  not 
influence  men  who  are  dead  in  sin.  Nor  will  they  be  moved 
by  Christ's  sympathy.  The  view  under  notice  fails  to  do 
justice  either  to  the  guilt  or  to  the  power  of  sin. 

3.  It  does  not  explain  the  fact  that  salvation  is  so  con- 
stantly referred  to  Christ's  death.  If  the  good  we  derive 
from  Christ  is  his  example,  or  his  doctrine,  or  his  sympathy, 
it  is  singular  that  the  sacred  writers  refer  so  constantly  to 
his  death.  We  should  expect  them  to  say  as  little  about 
the  cross  as  those  do  who  preach  the  views  to  which  we  are 
now  alluding.  On  the  contrary,  Jesus  Christ  and  him  cru- 
cified was  the  theme  of  apostolic  preaching. 

4.  But  these  opinions  in  regard  to  the  work  of  Christ  are 
false  because  they  are  in  conflict  with  the  passages  which 
have  a  sacrificial  import.  These  may  be  more  properly 
alluded  to,  however,  under  the  next  view,  to  which  we  now 


40  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

II.  The  Sacrificial  View. 

The  view  which  we  are  now  to  consider  embraces  all  those 
who  hold  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  sacrifice,  on  account 
of  which  God  pardons  sin  and  receives  us  into  his  favor. 
There  is  room,  of  course,  for  a  difference  of  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  exact  relation  in  which  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
stands  to  our  salvation.  But  with  this  we  are  not  at  pres- 
ent concerned. 

It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  those  who  believe 
in  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's  death  do  not  hold  in 
less  esteem  than  the  advocates  of  the  Socinian  view  his  ex- 
ample, teaching  and  sympathy.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
through  the  benefits  which  flow  from  Christ's  sacrifice  that 
we  are  able  to  appreciate  Christ's  example,  to  improve  un- 
der his  teaching,  or  to  be  affected  by  his  exhibition  of  sym- 
pathy. 

The  view  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made  i&  seri- 
ously false.  Great  care  should  be  taken  not  to  be  imposed 
upon  by  theories  which,  though  they  retain  orthodox 
phraseology,  are  in  radical  opposition  to  the  gospel.  A 
theory  which  denies  that  Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sin,  and  that  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  is  not 
the  gospel  of  Christ.  The  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's 
death  will  appear : 

1.  From  the  fact  that  our  salvation  is  so  constantly  re- 
ferred to  his  death.  It  is  his  death  which  he  would  have 
us  remember  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
bread  represents  his  body,  "  broken  for  us ;"  the  wiue  his 
blood,  which  was  "  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
We  are  "reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son."  "We 
have  redemption  through  his  blood."  "Christ  died  for  the 
ungodly."  These  passages  are  unmeaning  if  Christ  saves 
by  moral  suasion  or  force  of  good  example.  They  are  per- 
fectly plain,  however,  if  his  death  was  an  expiatory  offering, 


SU3IMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  41 

The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  a  sacrificial  system ;  and 
when  Jesus  was  spoken  of  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  they  saw  the  reference  at  once  to 
the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  without  blemish  which  the  law  of 
Moses  ordained. 

2.  Passages  abound  in  Scripture  which  teach  that  Christ 
redeemed  us.  "  We  are  redeemed  by  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish."  "  Christ  hath  re- 
deemed us  to  God  by  his  blood."  "  We  are  bought  with  a 
price."  Christ  said  that  he  came  to  give  "  his  life  a  ransom 
for  many." 

3.  Christ  is  a  priest,  and  a  priest,  moreover, "  who  needeth 
not  daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice  first  for 
his  own  sins,  and  then  for  the  people's,  for  this  he  did  once 
when  he  offered  up  himself."  "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  un- 
clean, sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much 
more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  unto  God,  purge  your 
consciences  from  dead  Avorks  to  serve  the  living  God  ?"  Heb. 
ix.  13,  14. 

4.  Christ  is  called  a  Sacrifice.  He  is  said  to  have  given 
himself  "an  oflfering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet 
smelling  savor."  "Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  many."  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  "  He  was 
made  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin."  "  He  bore  our  sins  in 
his  own  body  on  the  tree."  "The  Lord  hath  laid  upon  him 
the  iniquity  of  us  all." 

5.  If  Christ  was  a  sacrifice,  the  teachings  of  the  Bible 
are  consistent.  If  he  was  not,  they  cannot  be  explained. 
And  this  constitutes  a  very  strong  argument. 

Those  who  say  that  Christ's  death  was  not  sacrificial  are 
compelled — (a.)  To  do  violence  to  language  by  saying  that 
the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  were  not  expiatory  ;  or  (6.)  to 
affirm  that  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  death  of  Christ 


42  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

and  the  sacrifices  of  the  old  economy,  and  that  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  New  Testament  are  figurative. 

As  to  the  first  position,  we  can  only  say  that  if  the  book 
of  Leviticus,  and  the  sixteenth  chapter  particularly,  does  not 
teach  that  the  offerings  were  penal,  vicarious  and  expiatory^ 
language  cannot  be  found  which  will  convey  the  idea.  And 
as  to  the  second,  we  remark  that  if  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  is  figurative,  the  wi iters  of  it  were  more 
given  to  poetical  expressions  than  any  writers  who  have  ever 
lived.  If  the  sober  utterances  of  inspired  men  can  be  ex- 
plained away  on  the  ground  that  they  are  metaphorical, 
Talleyrand  was  truly  right  in  saying  that  language  was 
meant  to  conceal  thought.  Those,  however,  who  assume  that 
the  apostles  found  it  necessary  to  employ  falsifying  metaphors 
in  order  to  commend  ihe  gospel  to  the  Jews  must  assume  that 
God's  education  of  that  nation  was  a  failure.  It  would  be 
strange  if  the  effect  of  their  being  made  the  custodians  of 
the  oracles  of  God  should  be  to  uufit  them  for  receiving  the 
gospel  except  through  the  channel  of  falsehood. 

The  view  which  regards  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  sac- 
rifice is  much  simpler  and  more  natural.  It  explains 
how  his  death  is  spoken  of  as  the  ground  of  salvation.  It 
shows  that  the  Jewish  ritual  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  so 
preserves  the  unity  of  the  tw^o  Testaments.  It  leads  us,  too, 
to  see  how  God  prepared  for  the  advent  of  Christ  by  fa- 
miliarizing the  Jews  with  the  language  of  the  altar,  so  that 
it  was  no  strange  thing  for  them  to  learn  that  we  have  re- 
ceived "  redemption  through  his  blood." 

The  Bible  represents  Christ  as  executing  the  offices  of 
prophet,  priest  and  king.  Our  Shorter  Catechism,  in  the 
answer  to  Question  25,  says  ;  "  Christ  executeth  the  office 
of  a  priest  in  his  once  offering  up  of  himself  a  sacrifice  to 
satisfy  divine  justice,  and  reconcile  us  to  God,  and  in  mak- 
ing continual  intercession  for  us." 

The  relation  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  the  pardon   of 


.SU3mARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  43 

our  sins  aud  our  acceptance  with  God  would  be  more  prop- 
erly considered  under  the  head  of  Justification.  Meanwhile, 
notice  that  three  things  are  to  be  said  of  the  death  of 
Christ : 

1.  It  was  penal. 

It  was  not  the  result  of  unavoidable  circumstances,  for 
Jesus  said,  I  lay  down  my  life ;  no  man  taketh  it  from  me. 
Nor  was  it  didactic,  merely,  intended  as  a  manifestation  of 
sympathy  or  an  illustration  of  heroism.  It  was  judicial. 
He  was  delivered  for  our  offences.  He  was  made  a  curse 
for  us. 

2.  It  was  vicarious. 

He  knew  no  sin ;  and  if  he  stood  in  legal  relations  and  en- 
dured penalty,  it  must  have  been  for  others.  He  bore  our 
sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.  He  died,  the  just  for  the 
unjust.  He  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many  (in  place  of 
many). 

3.  It  was  expiatory. 

The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

Who  is  Jesus  ?  We  know  what  he  did.  He  gave  his  life 
as  our  ransom.  He  died  to  expiate  our  guilt.  He  is  our 
Saviour.  Our  Lord  once  asked  his  disciples,  What  think  ye 
of  Christ  ?  and  the  same  question  has  fallen  upon  the  ear 
of  humanity  ever  since.  Three  leading  replies  have  been 
given.  Humanitarians  say  that  Christ  is  a  man,  and  nothing 
more.  Arians  say  that  Christ,  though  a  creature,  was  more 
than  man.  The  Nicene  or  orthodox  view,  is  that  Christ  is 
both  God  and  man.  Let  us  notice  these  replies  in  their 
order. 


44  SU3IMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

I.  The  Humanitarians. 

Two  classes  are  embraced  under  this  head:  (a)  those 
who  deny  that  there  is  anything  supernatural  in  Christ's 
life,  and  who  say  that  he  was  born,  lived  and  died  as  other 
men  ;  (6)  those  who  believe  that  Christ  was  only  a  man, 
but  who  believed  also  in  his  supernatural  birth,  his  divine 
commission  and  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

Humanitarians  affirm  a  very  important  truth  when  they 
say  that  Christ  was  a  man.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to 
emphasize  this  fact,  which  we  hold  in  common  with  them, 
before  we  consider  the  point  of  difference  which  separates 
us  from  them. 

Jesus  Christ  was  a  man.  He  is  spoken  of  eighty-two  times 
in  the  New  Testament  as  the  Son  of  man.  He  is  called  the 
man  Christ  Jesus.  He  had  a  "  true  body."  It  was  not  a 
phantasm  or  shadow,  as  the  Docetse  thought.  Our  Lord  was 
born  of  a  woman.  His  body  grew  and  increased  in  strength. 
During  the  temptation  he  hungered.  On  the  cross  he  cried, 
"  I  thirst."  He  was  wearied.  He  slept  once  at  night  in  a 
boat,  and  rested  once  at  noon  by  a  well.  He  had  a  true 
body  after  his  resurrecction.  The  doubting  disciple  had 
proof  of  this.  He  went  up  to  heaven  with  a  real,  though  a 
glorified,  body. 

He  also  had  "  a  reasonable  soul."  This  has  been  denied. 
The  ApoUinarians  believed  in  what  is  called  the  tripartite 
nature  of  man,  and  held  that,  while  Christ  had  a  human 
body  and  the  animal  soul,  the  spirit  was  wanting,  and 
that  its  place  was  supplied  by  the  Logos.  In  a  modified 
form  this  view  is  maintained  by  some  at  the  present  day. 
It  is  false,  however ;  our  Lord's  life  was  as  .completely  hu- 
man as  it  was  completely  divine.  He  suffered  ;  he  rejoiced 
in  spirit ;  he  loved ;  he  wept ;  he  formed  friendships ;  he 
used  the  language  of  indignation ;  he  was  tempted ;  he 
was  made  under  the  law;  his  soul  was  exceeding  sorrow- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  4t 

fill  even  unto  death.  If  Christ  had  no  human  soul,  these 
references  would  have  no  meaning,  A  human  body  is  not 
a  man.  An  angel  in  human  form  is  not  a  man.  God  in 
the  garment  of  flesh  and  blood  could  not  be  called  a  man. 
If  Christ  had  no  soul,  he  was  not  human,  and  was  not  our 
brother. 

The  full  humanity  of  Jesus  is  a  truth  of  vital  importance. 
All  that  is  precious  in  Christian  experience  is  involved  in 
it.     Christ  must  be  a  man — 

1.  That  he  might  be  our  example.  He  has  left  us  an  ex- 
ample that  we  should  follow  in  his  steps. 

2.  That  he  might  sympathize  with  us.  Having  suffered, 
being  tempted,  he  is  able  also  to  succor  them  who  are 
tempted. 

3.  That  he  might  take  our  place  in  law.  He  was  made 
under  the  law  that  he  might  redeem  them  who  are  under 
the  law. 

4.  That  he  might  be  our  High  Priest.  "  For  every  high 
priest  taken  from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in  things 
pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices 
for  sin." 

5.  That  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest 
in  things  pertaining  to  God.  "  Being  tempted  in  all  points, 
like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin." 

And  yet  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  of  little  worth  if 
Christ  is  only  a  man.  Humanitarians  lavish  eulogies  on 
Jesus,  but  they  are  only  laying  garlands  on  the  grave  of  the 
dead.  We  worship  a  living  Christ.  It  is  because  he  is  more 
than  man — that  Christianity  is  not  a  system  of  philosophy 
on  the  one  hand,  or  a  system  of  hero-worship  on  the  other. 

We  may  appeal  to  Christ's  character  to  prove  that  he  was 
not  an  ordinary  man — that  he  was,  to  say  the  least,  divinely 
inspired.  Some  find  in  it  proof  of  his  divinity,  but  this  is 
to  make  it  responsible  for  conclusions  which  are  not 
legitimately  deducible  from  it.     We  are  not  shut  up  to  the 


46  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

belief  in  Christ's  divinity  because  his  character  is,  as  Dr. 
Schaff  says,  "  the  greatest  moral  miracle  in  history."  * 

The  character  of  Christ  is  peerless.  The  words  of  Pilate 
are  the  verdict  of  the  ages :  I  find  no  fault  in  him.  But 
perfect  manhood  is  no  evidence  of  Deity.  When  we  are 
asked  to  account  for  this  solitary  instance  of  perfection,  we 
are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  Christ  stood  in  intimate 
relation  with  God.  As  Nicodemus  would  have  said :  no 
man  could  have  lived  as  he  lived  except  God  were  with 
him.  And  yet  Christ  may  have  had  a  supernatural  birth, 
have  lived  a  perfect  life  and  have  risen  from  the  dead,  and 
still  have  been  a  man — a  mere  man,  though  by  no  means  an 
ordinary  man.  But  Christ  was  more  than  man,  as  we  shall 
see. 

II.  The  Arians. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  one  can  believe  the 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament  and  suppose  that  Christ 
was  a  mere  man.  Arians,  though  they  believe  that  Christ 
is  a  creature,  reject  the  Humanitarian  view.  Their  belief  may 
be  stated  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  an  Arian  of 
the  last  century :  "  With  this  first  or  supreme  cause  or  Fa- 
ther of  all  things,  there  has  existed  from  the  beginning  a 
second  divine  person  who  is  the  Word  or  Son."  "  The  Father 
alone,"  he  says  elsewhere,  "  is,  absolutely  speaking,  the  God 
of  the  universe."  Arians  appeal  to  the  numerous  passages 
of  Scripture  which  teach  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus,t  such 
as  John  iii.  16  :  "  But  he  that  came  down  from  heaven."  ix. 
64 :  "  What  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascending  up  where 
he  was  before."  xvii.  4 :  "And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou 
me  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world 

*  See  Schafi's  "  Person  of  Christ,"  and  Dr.  Bushnell's  chapter  on  the 
character  of  Christ  in  his  "Nature  and  the  Supernatural." 

t  Clarke  on  the  Trinity. 

See  the  admirable  chapter  on  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  in  Hill'a 
"  Lectures  on  Divinity." 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  47 

was."  The  Arian  finds  that  the  Scriptures  place  Christ  on 
a  plane  far  above  that  of  mere  humanity,  for  they  teach 
that  Christ  existed  long  before  he  came  in  the  flesh,  and 
that  in  his  pre-existent  state  he  exercised  authority,  wielded 
power,  received  homage,  which  proves  him  to  be  invested 
with  a  dignity  which  is  shared  by  no  other  creature— which 
takes  him  out  of  the  sphere  of  created  beings  altogether,  we 
8hould  say.     But  we  shall  come  to  that  presently. 

Arianism  fails  to  explain  the  teachings  of  Scripture  re- 
specting Christ.  It  refutes  Humanitarianism  by  showing 
that  Christ  is  more  than  man.  It  is  in  turn  refuted  by  Hu- 
manitarianism, which  proves  that  Christ  was  at  least  a  man. 
Arianism  is  false  because  it  destroys  Christ's  humanity,* 
and  because  it  denies  his  deity.  His  humanity  has  been 
proved.     His  deity  must  now  be  considered. 

III.  The  Nicene  Doctrine. 

The  Council  of  Nice  in  325  A.  D.  condemned  Arianism, 
and  afiirmed  that  "  the  Son  is  begotten  out  of  the  essence 
of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  Light  of  light,  very  God  of  very 
God,  begotten  not  created,  consubstantial  with  the  Father." 
The  Nicene  creed  expresses  the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church. 
But  before  the  evidence  for  the  deity  of  Christ  is  presented, 
notice  that  the  Arian  has  already  overcome  the  greatest 
difficulty  connected  with  the  person  of  Christ  in  admitting 
the  supernatural  element  which  enters  into  it.  The  Arian 
is  the  ally  of  the  orthodox  in  proving,  in  opposition  to  the 

*The  incarnation,  according  to  Arius,  was  merely  the  assumption 
by  the  Son  of  a  human  body,  his  nature  supplying  the  place  of  a 
Boui.     Robertson's  "  Church  History,"  vol.  i.,  p.  208. 

"You  run  counter  to  all  the  ancients  in  supposing  the  Logos  to 
have  supplied  the  place  of  a  human  soul,  and  making  the  Logos  as 
Buch  possihhr     Waterland's  "  Vindication  "  (reply  to  Dr.  Clarke). 

"  We  believe  that  Jesus  is  one  mind,  soul— one  being,  as  truly 
as  we  are  one,  and  equally  distinct  from  the  one  God."  Channing's 
"Unitarian  Christianity." 


48  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

Humanitarian,  that  Christ  existed  ages  before  he  was  born, 
and  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  before  the  world  was 
made.  The  question  now  is  to  determine  whether  Jesus  is 
the  highest  of  all  creatures  or  whether  he  is  God.  There 
are  some  passages  of  Scripture  which,  though  they  naturally 
suggest  the  deity  of  Christ,  may,  we  admit,  be  construed  in 
an  Arian  sense;  and  since  we  can  quote  only  a  few,  we  shall 
not  mention  these  at  all.  The  following  passages  teach  the 
deity  of  Christ  unequivocally  : 

1.  Christ  claimed  to  be  equal  with  God.  He  said,  "I  and 
my  Father  are  one."  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work."  "  That  ye  may  know  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins,  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise."  "  Have  I  been 
so  long  a  time  with  thee,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  me, 
Philip?  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father,  and 
how  sayest  thou  then.  Show  us  the  Father?" 

On  the  supposition  that  Christ  is  less  than  God,  these  ut- 
terances cannot  be  explained.  The  Jews  understood  him 
to  lay  claim  to  divine  honors,  and  stoned  him  on  that  account: 
"We  stone  thee  for  blasphemy  because  thou,  being  a  man, 
makest  thyself  God."  Christ  did  not  tell  them  that  they 
had  misunderstood  him.  He  accepted  their  interpretation 
of  his  claims.  The  claims  of  Christ  are  backed  by  his 
character  and  his  miracles.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
so  pure  a  man  as  Jesus  was  would  pretend  to  be  what  he  was 
not,  or  that  God  would  enable  him  to  work  miracles  in  sup- 
port of  a  falsehood. 

2.  Christ  is  the  angel  of  the  covenant.*  When  God  re- 
vealed himself  to  the  patriarchs,  it  was  usually  in  the  form 
of  an  angel.  An  angel  appeared  to  Jacob  at  Bethel,  to 
Moses  on  Sinai.  The  angel  of  the  Lord  went  before  the 
camp  of  Israel  in  their  journeying  through  the  wilderness. 
We  have  abundant  proof  that  this  angel  was  not  a  created 

*Seo  Hill's  "Lectures  in  Divinity"  on  actions  ascribed  to  Jesus  in 
his  pre-existent  state. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  49 

being  ;  he  is  invariably  spoken  of  as  God.  "  The  angel  of 
the  Lord  apake  with  me,"  says  Jacob,  "saying,  I  am  the 
God  of  Bethel."  The  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Moses 
in  a  flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush.  "And  when 
the  Lord  saw  that  he  turned  aside  to  see,  God  called  unto 
him  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush."  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  same  person  is  called  angel  and  Jehovah.  "  The  an- 
gel "or  "the  angel  of  the  covenant"  was  understood  by  the 
Jews  to  mean  the  person  who  had  appeared  to  the  patri- 
archs, and  who  led  Israel  through  the  desert.  This  person 
was  divine,  for  he  is  called  Jehovah.  If  it  can  be  shown 
that  this  person  was  Christ,  it  will  prove  that  Christ  is  God. 
We  read  in  Malachi  iii.  1 :  ''Behold, I  send  my  messenger, 
and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me:  and  the  Lord 
whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the 
messenger  of  the  covenant  whom  ye  delight  in."  This 
prophecy  is  referred  in  the  gospel  to  John  the  Baptist. 
John  the  Baptist  is  therefore  the  messenger  of  whom  it  is 
said,  "  He  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me."  But  John  the 
Baptist  prepared  the  way  for  Christ.  Christ  is  therefore  the 
one  referred  to  in  Malachi,  in  the  next  clause  of  the  verse, 
as  the  Lord  (Jehovah),  the  messenger  (angel)  of  the 
covenant. 

3.  Christ  is  called  God  in  the  New  Testament :  "  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God.  .  .  .  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh, 
and  dwelt  amongst  us."  John  i. 

"And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord 
and  my  God."  John  xx.  28. 

"  Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock 
over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to 
feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood."  Acts  xx.  28. 

"  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever."  Rom.  ix.  5, 
4 


60  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

"Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness,  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh."  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

*'  This  (person,  Jesus  Christ)  is  the  true  God  and  eternal 
life."  1  John  V.  20. 

"  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope  and  the  glorious  appearing 
of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  Titus 
ii.  3.* 

These  passages  directly  assert  the  deity  of  Christ.  It 
must  be  remembered,  too,  that  he  is  referred  to  in  the 
Psalms  and  the  prophets  in  terms  which  would  be  inapplic- 
able to  any  creature.  He  is  called  the  mighty  God,  the 
everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  peace.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  is  constantly  called  the  Lord,  our  Lord,  the  Lord  of 
glory.  He  is  before  all  things.  He  is  the  first-born  of  every 
creature.  The  world  was  made  by  him.  He  is  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God.  He  is  to  be  honored  even  as  we  honor 
the  Father.  He  is  the  judge  of  men.  He  is  the  object  of 
worship.  He  is  omnipresent  and  omniscient.  He  does  di- 
vine acts,  is  the  subject  of  divine  attributes,  shares  divine 
honors,  and  is  called  God.  If  we  are  willing  to  accept  the 
Scriptures  as  our  infallible  rule  of  faith,  the  deity  of  Christ 
must  be  considered  as  proved. 

It  is  urged  by  objectors  that  it  is  impossible  to  compre- 
hend how  the  Son  can  be  God  and  the  Father  God, 
and  yet  that  there  is  only  one  God.  It  is  a  mystery,  of 
course.  But  the  doctrine  is  not  false  because  it  is  incom- 
prehensible. It  is  not  strange  that  the  relations  which  the 
persons  of  the  Godhead  sustain  to  one  another  baffle  our 
comprehension. 

It  is  also  said  that  Christ  speaks  of  himself  as  subordinate 
to  the  Father.     He  says,  *'  My  Father  js  greater  than  I." 

*  Ellicott,  Com.  in  loc,  says,  "  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction 
that  our  blessed  Lord  is  here  said  to  be  our  ftiyac  Qedg,  and  that  this 
test  is  a  direct,  definite,  and  even  studied,  declaration  of  the  divinity  of 
the  eternal  Son." 


SUM.MARY  OF  DOCTRINE,  51 

He  intimates  that  some  things  are  known  to  the  Father 
which  are  not  known  to  the  Son  :  "  But  of  that  day  and 
that  hour  knoweth  no  man  ;  no,  not  the  angels  which  are 
in  heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  Mark  xiii.  32. 

But  we  must  remember  that  Christ  had  a  finite  human 
nature  as  well  as  an  infinite  divine  nature.  Christ,  though 
co-equal  with  the  Father,  was  officially  subordinate  to  him 
in  his  mediatorial  work.  These  considerations  fully  ex- 
plain the  passages  referred  to  without  derogating  from 
Christ's  divinity. 

The  deity  of  Christ  is  a  practical  doctrine.  Between 
those  who  believe  and  those  who  deny  it  the  distance  is 
measureless.  If  Christ  is  a  creature,  we  are  idolaters  who 
worship  him.  If  Christ  is  God,  his  death  cannot  be  explained 
except  upon  the  principle  that  without  the  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission.  Those  who  deny  the  deity 
of  Christ,  as  a  rule,  deny  the  sacrificial  character  of  his 
death.  Those  who  believe  that  his  death  was  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins  are  naturally  led  to  believe  that  he  is  God.  It 
is  well  to  notice  how  the  doctrines  confirm  one  another. 
Sin  calls  for  sacrifice,  as  we  have  already  seen;  but  the 
sacrifice  of  an  angel  could  not  save  us.  It  must  be  a  human 
sacrifice.  Christ  is  the  sacrifice,  and  he  has  a  human  nature. 
But  the  death  of  a  mere  man  could  not  atone  for  our  sins. 
It  must  be  the  death  of  a  divine  person  to  give  it  value. 
Christ  had  a  divine  nature. 

The  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  summed 
up  in  these  propositions  : 

1.  He  had  a  complete  human  nature — i.  e.,  a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  soul. 

2.  He  had  a  true  divine  nature.     He  was  God. 

3.  These  natures  exist  entire  and  distinct,  without  mixture 
or  confusion. 

4.  He  is  one  person. 

Though  having  two  natures,  he  has  only  a  single  persoa- 


52  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

ality.     He  is  the  divine  person  who  existed  from  all  eter- 
nity. 

Our  Shorter  Catechism  expresses  this  by  si.yiug  that 
"The  only  redeemer  of  God's  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who,  being  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  became  man,  and 
so  was,  and  continues  to  be,  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person  for  ever." 


THE  TRINITY. 

Religion  presupposes  God.  Belief  in  God  is  universal, 
and  is  vindicated  by  valid  arguments.  There  is  need  of  an 
authoritative  standard  to  give  us  information  regarding 
God's  nature,  and  to  arbitrate  between  conflicting  opinions. 
That  standard  is  the  Bible.  These  propositions  have  all 
been  considered. 

The  Bible  teaches — 

1.  That  God  is. 

It  does  not  offer  proof  of  his  existence.  It  takes  it  for 
granted.  It  relates  what  God  said  and  did,  and  what  he 
would  have  us  believe  and  do. 

2.  That  there  is  only  one  God. 

"Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  Deut.  vi. 
4.  "  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom 
are  all  things."  1  Cor.  viii.  5.  There  is  evidence  in  history, 
and  apart  from  Scripture,  that  polytheism  is  the  corrupted 
form  of  an  original  monotheistic  faith.  For  a  preservation 
of  monotheism,  however,  w'e  are  indebted  to  revelation. 
Jews,  Mohammedans  and  Christians  believe  in  one  God  be- 
cause they  have  been  taught  by  the  Bible. 

3.  That  he  is  extra-mundane. 

Pantheists  profess  to  believe  in  God,  but  they  identify 
God  with  the  universe.     God  is  everything,  and  everything 


SVMMABY  OF  DOCTRINE.  h^ 

is  God.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  God  is  distinct  from  the 
world  for  he  made  it :  "  Before  the  mountains  were  brought 
forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world, 
even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting,  thou  art  God."  Ps. 
xc.  2. 

4.  That  he  is  a  spirit,  infinite  in  every  perfection. 
"God  is  a  spirit,  and  they  who  worship  him  must  worship 

him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  John  iv.  24.  Our  Shorter  Cate- 
chism gives  this  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  God?  God 
is  a  spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wis- 
dom, power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth.* 

5.  That  he  is  a  person. 

This  is  involved  in  the  attributes  first  ascribed  to  him. 
He  is  not  a  force,  a  tendency,  a  law.  He  is  a  person  whom 
we  can  address,  whom  we  can  love,  who  can  reward  or  pun- 
ish us.  To  deny  the  personality  of  God  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  to  avow  Atheism. f 

But  this  is  not  all.  We  have  reached  conclusions  regard- 
ing Christ  which  make  it  necessary  to  believe  more  than 
we  have  yet  stated  regarding  God. 

Jesus  Christ  is  God.  Jesus  Christ  is  likewise  the  Sou  of 
God.  So  that  we  have  Grod  the  Father  and  God  the  Son 
We  have  God  the  Holy  Ghost  also,  as  we  shall  see.  For  it 
can  be  shown — (a)  That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person. 
Some  orthodox  people,  because  they  are  very  thoughtless  or 
very  ignorant,  speak  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  it.  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  simply  the  power  of  God,  a  divine  influence  or 
energy.  He  is  a  person,  as  we  are  clearly  taught  in  passages 
like  the  following  :  "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God." 

*For  remarks  on  the  attributes  of  God,  see  the  commentary  on  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  by  Dr.  A,  A.  Hodge. 

f  Matthew  Arnold  defines  God  to  be  a  stream  of  tendency  according 
to  wL  ch  all  things  fulfill  the  law  of  their  being.  The  great  mistake 
of  Christianity,  according  to  him,  consists  in  regarding  God  a^  a  per- 
son.— Literature  and  Doytna. 


54  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

Eph.  iv.  30,  "  The  Spirit  maketh  intercession  for  us  with 
groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered."  Rom.  viii.  26.  "  The 
Spirit  said  unto  Peter,  Behold,  three  men  seek  thee."  Acts 
X.  19.  The  Holy  Ghost  said,  *'  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them."  Acts 
xiii.  2. 

"  The  Comforter,  who  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Fa- 
ther will  send  in  my  name ;  he  shall  teach  you  all  things." 
John  xiv.  26.* 

(6.)  That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 

There  are  few  who  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  crea- 
ture. Those  who  deny  the  Trinity  maintain  that  by  the  Spirit 
is  simply  meant  the  operation  of  God  or  the  influence 
which  God  exerts.  The  deity  of  the  Spirit  seems  to  follow 
when  his  personality  is  established.  It  is  very  clear  that 
he  is  not  a  creature.  The  unpardonable  sin  is  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost.  Ananias  was  told  that  he  had  lied 
to  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  when  Peter  repeated  the  statement, 
he  said  that  he  had  lied  unto  God.  To  lie  unto  the  Holy 
Ghost,  therefore,  is  to  lie  unto  God. 

Again,  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Christians 
are  spoken  of  as  temples  of  God,  and  this  is  explained  by 
the  statement  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  them.  We 
are  taught  to  honor  the  Spirit  as  we  honor  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  for  we  are  baptized  in  his  name,  and  the  apostolic 
benediction  invokes  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
well  as  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Scriptures  teach,  therefore,  1.  That  there  is  only  one 
God.  2.  That  the  Father  is  God ;  that  the  Son  is  God ; 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 

Those  who  accept  these  facts  difier  in  their  explanation  of 
them,  and  their  difference  is  brought  out  in  the  two  leading 
opinions  on  the  Trinity  :  the  Sabellian  and  the  Athanasiau. 
*  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  art.  viii. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  hb 

I.  The  Sabellian  Doctrine. 

The  Scripture  requires  us  to  believe  in  the  deity  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  at  the 
same  time  preserve  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity.  This 
is  a  difficulty.  The  first,  and  perhaps  the  most  natural, 
solution  of  it  would  be  what  is  known  in  Church  history  as 
Sabellianism,  or  the  doctrine  of  a  modal  Trinity.  Those 
who  hold  this  opinion  suppose  that  the  same  Being  mani- 
fests himself,  at  one  time  and  in  one  relation,  as  Father; 
at  another  time  and  in  another  relation,  as  Son  ;  and  at 
another  time  and  in  another  relation,  as  Holy  Ghost.  As 
Creator,  God  is  Father ;  as  Redeemer,  he  is  the  Son ;  as 
Sanctifier,  he  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  just  as  the  same  man 
may  be  known  by  different  names  at  different  times  and 
under  different  circumstances.  As  a  church  officer,  he 
may  be  called  deacon ;  as  a  professional  man,  he  may  be 
called  judge ;  while  a  third  party,  associating  his  name 
with  army  reminiscences,  may  call  him  general. 

The  doctrine  of  a  modal  Trinity,  however,  does  not  teach 
the  whole  truth.  It  teaches  truly  that  the  Father  is  God,  that 
the  Son  is  God,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  and  yet  that 
there  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  But  it  denies  that 
the  Father  is  a  person  distinct  from  the  Son,  the  Son  a  per- 
son distinct  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  "  The 
scriptural  facts  are— (a)  the  Father  says  I,  the  Son  says  T, 
the  Spirit  says  I.  (6)  The  Father  says  thou  to  the  Son, 
and  the  Son  says  tho.u  to  the  Father,  and  in  like  manner 
the  Father  and  Son  use  the  pronouns  he  and  him  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Spirit,  (c)  The  Father  loves  the  Son,  the  Son 
loves  the  Father,  the  Spirit  testifies  of  the  Son."* 

In  other  words,  the  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine  of  a 
tri-personal  God. 

*Dr.  Hodge,  "Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  i.,  p.  444. 


56  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

II.  The  Athanasian  Doctrine. 

The  full  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Triuity  is  set  forth  in 
the  so-called  Athanasian  creed.    We  quote  a  few  sentences . 

"But  this  is  the  catholic  faith,  that  we  worship  one  God 
in  trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity.  Neither  confounding  the 
persons  nor  dividing  the  substance.  For  the  person  of  the 
Father  is  one,  of  the  Son  another,  of  the  Holy  Spirit  an- 
other. But  the  divinity  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  one,  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty 
equal.  Such  as  is  the  Father,  such  also  is  the  Son,  and 
such  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  is 
uncreated,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  uncreated.  The  Father  is 
infinite,  the  Son  is  infinite,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  infinite.  The 
Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  is  eternal,  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
eternal.  And  yet  there  are  not  three  eternal  beings,  but 
one  eternal  Being.  As  also  there  are  not  three  uncreated 
beings  nor  three  infinite  beings,  but  one  uncreated  and 
one  infinite  Being." 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Athanasian  creed  does  not  add 
anything  to  what  the  Scriptures  themselves  teach  regarding 
God.  The  Bible  teaches — (1)  That  there  is  only  one  God. 
(2)  That  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  God,  the  Holy  Ghost 
God.  (3)  That  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three 
distinct  persons.  These  three  facts  constitute  the  Church 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  doctrine  being  proved,  it  is 
natural  that  we  should  find  references  to  it  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, where  the  word  Elohim  (God)  appears  in  the  plural 
form  ;  where  God  says  let  us  make  man  ;  in  the  trinal  form 
of  adoration  :  Holy,  Holy,  Holy  ;  and  in  the  threefold  form 
of  blessing.  There  are  repeated  references  to  it  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  the  most  remarkable  are  found  in  the  bap- 
tismal formula  and  in  the  apostolic  benediction. 

The  three  persons  of  the  Trinity,  though  the  same  in 
eubstauce,  equal  in  power  and  glory,  nevertheless  sustain 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  57 

such  a  relation  to  each  other  that  the  Father  is  first,  the 
Son  second,  the  Holy  Ghost  third.  The  second  person 
is  so  related  to  the  first  as  to  be  called  the  Son,  but  what 
the  relation  implies  we  do  not  know.  The  Son  has  been 
Son  from  all  eternity,  and  did  not  assume  the  title  at  his 
incarnation.  The  Holy  Ghost  "  proceedeth "  from  the 
Father  and  the  Sou,  but  what  this  expression  implies  we 
cannot  say. 

If  the  separate  elements  which  enter  into  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  are  proved  to  be  taught  in  Scripture,  the 
only  reasonable  mode  of  objecting  to  the  doctriue  is  that  of 
denying  the  authority  of  Scripture ;  and  many  do  stand  in 
this  defiant  attitude.  But  there  are  many  who  are  not 
willing  to  concede  that  the  separate  elements  of  the  doc- 
trine are  taught  in  Scripture.  In  other  words,  they  deny 
that  the  deity  of  Christ  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  Of  course, 
as  long  as  they  do  this,  it  is  unnecessary  for  them  to  urge, 
or  even  for  us  to  consider,  further  objections  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Unitarians,  however,  are  fond  of 
making  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  appear  ridiculous.  And 
some  who  do  not  disbelieve  the  deity  of  Christ  are  per- 
plexed by  the  difficulties  which  they  meet  in  Trinitarian 
theology,  and  make  a  truce  with  doubt  by  assuming  that, 
after  all,  the  doctrine  is  not  of  much  practical  importance. 
To  illustrate : 

1.  It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  involves  a 
contradiction.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  The  Church  does 
not  teach  that  three  persons  are  one  person,  but  that  one 
Being  exists  in  three  persons.  It  is  assumed  always  by 
those  who  ridicule  Trinitarian  faith  that  we  suppose  that 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  persons,  in  the  same 
sense  that  Peter,  James  and  John  are  three  individuals. 
But  we  do  not.  What  do  w.e  believe  ?  We  believe — (1) 
that  there  is  one  God ;  (2)  that  God  is  tri-personal — that  is 
to  say,  that  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  so  distinct 


58  SUiMiMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

that  the  Father  can  address  the  Son,  the  Son  address  the 
Father  and  speak  of  sending  the  Spirit.  The  Scripture 
teaches  these  facts  regarding  the  relation  of  Father,  Son 
and  Spirit,  and  the  word  person  expresses  them  better  than 
any  other. 

Again,  it  is  asked  how  the  Son  can  be  as  old  as  the 
Father.  The  object  of  the  question  is  to  involve  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  in  a  contradiction,  for  of  course,  if 
Christ  is  God,  he  is  co-eternal  with  the  Father.  But  we 
cannot  fathom  the  meaning  of  the  words  "Father"  and 
"  Son  "  when  used  to  express  the  relations  of  the  first  and 
second  Persons  of  the  Trinity.  We  know  that  there  is  a 
relation  between  them  which  these  names  are  used  to 
express.     Beyond  that  we  are  in  the  dark. 

2.  It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  is  inconceivable.  But  this 
is  not  true.  Every  statement  of  the  Athanasian  creed 
is  a  plain  proposition.  It  is  incomprehensible,  without 
doubt.  But  that  is  not  strange.  The  incomprehensibility 
of  the  doctrine  should  not  make  us  doubt  its  truth  or  ques- 
tion its  importance. 

3.  It  is  said  that  the  subject  is  of  no  great  practical  value. 
This,  too,  is  a  grave  mistake.  This  is  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine. Sin  is  the  violation  of  God's  law,  hence  our  need 
of  pardon.  Pardon  must  be  preceded  by  propitiation. 
The  propitiation  is  made  by  Christ,  and  to  give  it  value 
Christ  must  be  divine.  The  divinity  of  Christ  proves  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Those  who  deny  the  Trinity  deny, 
as  a  rule,  the  deity  of  Christ,  deny  that  Christ  made  an 
atonement,  and  deny  that  sin  is  such  a  violation  of  God's 
law  that  it  incurs  God's  wrath  and  curse  to  all  eternity. 

The  doctrines  of  Scripture  are  so  related, that  if  we  deny 
the  Trinity  we  part  company  with  the  gospel. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  59 


JUSTIFICATION. 

A  MAN  dies  and  goes  to  heaven,  let  us  suppose.  Now, 
why  ?  That  is  a  practical  question,  certainly.  And  yet  the 
answer  to  it  fills  a  long  chapter  in  theological  discussion. 
It  is  a  mistake,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  religion  can  be 
divorced  from  theology. 

Between  man  the  sinner  and  Christ  the  Saviour,  there 
must  be  some  relation  which  constitutes  the  foundation 
of  Christian  hope,  and  which  furnishes  material  for  an 
answer  to  the  question  which  we  have  just  asked.  All 
professing  Christians  would  agree,  perhaps,  in  saying  that 
Christ  saves  us  by  securing  our  justification,  or  that  we 
enter  heaven  because  we  are  justified.  But  there  are  differ- 
ences of  opinion  respecting  the  nature,  ground,  means  and 
effect  *  of  justification,  and  these  differences  represent  dif- 
ferent answers  to  the  question  just  propounded,  if,  in  fact, 
they  do  not  constitute  different  religions. 

I.  The  Nature  of  Justification. 
There  are  two,  and  only  two,  leading  views  on  this  sub- 
ject; for  justification  must  refer  either  to  a  change  of  cha- 
racter or  to  a  change  of  legal  condition.  It  must  be  moral 
or  forensic.  The  difference  between  these  views  is  apparent. 
A  criminal  under  sentence  of  death  is  pardoned.  The 
pardon  does  not  alter  the  man's  nature  or  reform  his 
character;  the  change  of  which  he  is  the  subject  is  simply 
legal.  If  his  pardon  were  called  his  justification,  the  word 
justification  would  be  used  in  a  forensic  sense.  Again,  a 
man  is  imprisoned  for  crime,  and  under  reformatory  influ- 

*  These  four  points  "may  be  justly  said  to  include  whatever  is 
essential  and  fundamental  in  the  doctrine  of  justification." — Buchan- 
an on  Justification,  p.  113. 


60  SUMMABY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

ences  his  conduct  improves.  If  we  should  speak  of  the 
change  wrought  on  the  man's  character  as  his  justifica- 
tion, we  shouhl  be  using  the  word  in  a  moral  sense  ;  there- 
fore, when  a  man  says  that  he  believes  in  "justification  by- 
faith,"  it  is  very  important  to  know  whether  he  uses  the 
word  justification  in  amoral  or  in  a  forensic  sense.  Let 
us  consider  these  senses  separately. 

1.  Moral. — The  controversy  between  the  Protestants  and 
the  Roman  Catholics  at  the  Reformation  turned  largely 
on  the  nature  of  justification,  the  latter  using  the  word  in  a 
moral  sense,  though  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  forensic — 
the  former  using  it  in  the  forensic  sense  alone.  Justifica- 
tion is  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent*  to  be  "  not  only 
the  remission  of  sins,  but  the  renewal  and  sanctifii3ation 
of  the  inner  man."  According  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
therefore,  justification  consists  in  a  change  of  moral  cha- 
racter produced  by  the  removal  of  original  sin  and  the  in- 
fusion of  righteousness.  But  besides  this  moral  use  of  the 
word,  in  behalf  of  which  they  contended  with  the  Protest- 
ants, they  recognized  its  forensic  or  judicial  meaning ;  and 
unless  this  is  kept  in  mind,  we  shall  fall  into  confusion 
when  we  study  their  position  respecting  the  ground  of 
justification,  for  they  very  strenuously  teach,  in  opposition 
to  Protestants,  that  we  are  justified  by  an  inherent  righteous- 
ness. But  inherent  righteousness  is  justification,  as  we  have 
already  seen  ;  and  how  can  inherent  righteousness  be  the 
essence  of  justification  and  the  ground  of  justification  at 
the  same  time  ?  The  only  solution  is,  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  use  the  word  both  in  its  moral  and  in  its  judicial 

*  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  VI.,  cap.  7:  "  Justificatio  non  est  sola  peccato- 
rum,  remissio  sedet  sanetificatio  et  renovatio  interioris  dominis  per 
voluntariam  susceptionem  gratiat  et  donorum  unde  homo  ex  in- 
justo  fit  Justus,  et  ex  iniruico  fit  amicus  ut  sit  hseres  secunduiu 
ispem  vitae  aeternae,  etc." — Quoted  in  Winer's  Confessions  of  Chris- 
tendom. 


SUM3rARY  OF  DOCTRINE,  61 

sense — the  moral  when  they  speak  of  the  nature  of  justifi- 
cation, and  the  judicial  when  they  speak  of  its  ground. 

Those  who  hold  the  moral-influence  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment use  the  word  justification  in  its  moral  sense.  They 
take  the  element  of  guilt  out  of  sin,  the  element  of  law  out 
of  the  atonement,  and  the  element  of  pardon  out  of  salva- 
tion. Sin,  they  say,  brings  suffering.  To  get  rid  of  suffering 
we  must  cease  to  sin.  Christ  is  our  Saviour  because  he  de- 
livers us  from  our  sins.  Men  need  cure  and  not  pardon. 
Justification  is  a  moral  change  and  not  a  legal  one.  We 
go  to  heaven  because  we  are  holy.* 

This  view  of  justification  is  similar  to  that  taught  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  it  is  more  unscriptural  and 
unevangelical.  For,  false  as  the  Romish  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication is,  it  proceeds  upon  a  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  the  need  of  supernatural  grace  and  the  expia- 
tory character  of  the  atonement.  The  moral-influence  theory 
ignores  or  denies  these  cardinal  doctrines,  while,  in  common 
with  the  Roman  Catholics,  it  teaches  that  we  go  to  heaven 
on  the  ground  of  what  we  are.  And  yet  this  doctrine  has 
its  defenders  in  so-called  evangelical  pulpits !  We  should 
be  on  our  guard  against  it ;  it  is  another  gospel. 

*  So  the  sinner  is  justified,  and  the  justification  is  a  most  vital  af- 
fair— "  the  justification  of  life."  Tlie  true  account  of  it  is  that  Je- 
sus, coming  into  the  world  with  all  God's  righteousness  upon  him, 
declaring  it  to  guilty  souls  in  all  the  manifold  evidences  of  his  life 
and  passion,  wins  their  faith ;  and  by  that  faith  they  are  connected 
again  with  the  life  of  God,  and  filled  and  overspread  with  his 
righteousness." — BushneWs  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  p.  435. 

"This  first  step,  or  look,  God  ward,  this  incipient  but  genuine 
movement  of  the  child-spirit,  is  justification,  rectification,  the  right- 
ing, rightening,  setting  right  of  the  soul  which  was  before  wholly 
wrong." — John  Young's  Christ  the  Light  and  Life  of  Men,  p.  171. 

"Therefore,  the  pardon  of  sin,  in  any  other  sense  than  the  reveal- 
ing and  the  opening  to  us  of  the  path  of  life,  is  now  to  us  as  undesir- 
able as,  in  relation  to  the  moral  government  of  the  Father  of  spirits, 
it  is  inconceivable." — McLeod  Campbell  on  the  Atonement,  p.  183. 


62  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

2.  Forensic— The  Protestant  churches  hold  the  foreDsic 
view  of  justification,  (^alvinists  and  Arminians  agree  in 
affirming  that  justification  expresses  a  change  of  legal  con- 
dition, and  not  a  change  of  moral  character.  But  they 
differ  in  this  way  :  Arminians,  the  later  ones  especially, 
say  that  justification  means  pardon;  Calvinists  say  that 
it  means  pardon  and  acceptance.  To  illustrate  :  the  execu- 
tive pardons  a  criminal,  but  he  does  not  treat  him  aa 
if  he  had  never  done  wrong.  God,  however,  not  only 
pardons  his  children,  but  he  treats  them  as  if  they  had 
never  sinned.  He  counts  them  as  if  they  were  righteous. 
Our  catechism  says :  "  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free 
grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us 
as  righteous  in  his  sight."  It  is  easy  to  show  that  this  is 
the  scriptural  view  of  justification — that  is  to  say,  that  jus- 
tification is  a  judicial  act,  and  that  it  is  more  than  pardon. 

1.  A  Judicial  Act. — The  adjective  dikaios  in  Greek  is 
the  epithet  used  to  express  the  idea  of  being  right  in  relation 
to  the  law.  The  verb  dikaioo,  translated  "justify,"  expresses 
the  idea  of  placing  one  in  the  position  implied  in  the  ad- 
jective dikaios.  Whether  in  a  particular  case  it  is  used  in 
the  moral  sense  of  "  making  righteous  "  or  in  the  forensic 
sense  "  of  pronouncing  righteous,"  must  be  determined  by 
the  context  and  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  writer.  It  is 
clear  that  it  is  used  in  the  latter  sense  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

(a)  For  if  it  were  used  in  the  moral  sense,  it  would  be 
possible  to  substitute  the  word  "sanctify"  for  "justify" 
without  destroying  the  sense.  This  cannot  be  done,  how- 
ever, as  any  one  who  will  make  the  experiment  will  find. 

(6)  The  judicial  meaning  of  justification  is  apparent 
from  Paul's  argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  His 
theme  is  our  relation  to  the  law  of  God.  AD  have  sinned, 
all  are  under  condemnation.  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  there 
is  no  justification.     Justification  is  an  act  of  God — an  act 


SUM3IARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  63 

done  without  regard  to  our  works — an  act  of  grace  on  the 
ground  of  the  propitiation  of  Christ — an  act  of  deliverance 
from  condemnation.     See  Rom.  iii.  19-26. 

(c)  Justification  does  not  mean  a  making  holy,  for  the 
Scriptures  distinguish  between  justification  and  sanctifica- 
tion.  1  Cor.  vi.  11. 

(rf)  Paul  speaks  of  David's  describing  the  blessedness 
of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works.  Rom.  iv.  6.  The  context  shows  that  "  imputing 
righteousness  without  works  "  is  the  equivalent  of  justifica- 
tion. Imputing  righteousness  without  works  does  not  mean 
transformation  of  character.  Neither,  therefore,  does  justi- 
fication :  both  are  forensic  forms  of  expression. 

(e)  The  word  "justify  "  is  used  as  the  opposite  of  "  con- 
demn." Rom.  viii.  33,  34  :  "  It  is  God  that  justifieth  ;  who 
is  he  that  condemneth  ?"  To  condemn  is  not  to  make  sin- 
ful ;  to  justify  is  not  to  make  holy. 

2.  More  than  Pardon. — Arminians,  as  we  have  said, 
regard  justification  as  synonymous  with  pardon.*  But  in 
this  they  err. 

(a)  Because  the  word  dikaioo  does  not  mean  "to  par- 
don," and  cannot  be  so  translated. 

(b)  It  is  fair  to  suppose  that  if  Paul  had  meant  "  par- 
don "  where  he  says  "justified,"  he  would  have  said  that 
we  ixvQ  pardoned  by  ^^\i\\, pardoned  without  works,  and  that 
being  pardoned  we  have  peace  with  God  ;  but  he  did  not. 

(c)  The  word  dikaioo  means  to  pronounce  righteous.f 
Pardon  is  therefore  included  in  the  justification  of  a  sinner, 
since  he  cannot  be  pronounced  righteous  in  the  sight  of  the 

*  Justification  is  a  "remission  of  sins,"  " a  sentence  of  pardon." 
—  WatsorCs  Institutes,  Part  II.,  chap.  23. 

The  plain  scriptural  notion  of  justification  is  pardon,  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins. —  Wesley's  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  47. 

f  Vide  Cremer,  Bibllco- Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testament 
Ch-eek. 


64  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

law  so   lojjg  as  he  is  under  condemnation.     He  may   be 
pardoned,  however,  without  being  pronounced  righteous. 

{d)  The  effects  of  justification  are  such  as  would  not 
follow  pardon.  It  is  one  thing  to  remit  a  penalty,  and  an- 
other thing  to  receive  into  favor  and  to  give  entrance  into 
eternal  life.  Suppose  that  God  should  pardon  a  man,  and 
leave  the  acceptance  of  him  and  his  title  to  heaven  to 
depend  on  his  subsequent  behavior.  AVould  pardon  bring 
peace?  Could  he  feel  that  he  was  reconciled  to  God? 
Could  he  have  any  assurance  of  salvation  ?  No.  And  if 
justification  is  the  equivalent  of  pardon,  how  does  it  happen 
that  the  justified  person  has  "  peace  with  God,"  is  "  recon- 
ciled to  God,"  "  hath  eternal  life,"  '*  is  persuaded  that  noth- 
ing shall  separate  him  from  the  love  of  God,"  "  is  accepted 
in  the  beloved  "  ?  The  effects  ascribed  to  justification  can  be 
explained  only  on  the  supposition  that  justification  effects  a 
pernianent,  unalterable  change  in  our  legal  condition,  and 
that  it  includes  not  only  the  pardon  of  our  sins,  but  the 
acceptance  of  us  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God. 

II.  The  Ground  of  Justification. 

What  is  that  to  which  God  has  regard  when  he  justifies 
us?  Is  it  something  within  us  or  something  without  us? 
Is  the  ground  of  our  justification  subjective  or  objective  f 
The  opinions  which  are  entertained  on  this  subject  may  be 
grouped  under  these  heads. 

1.  Subjective. — If  God  pronounces  men  righteous,  it 
must  be  on  the  ground  of  an  inherent  or  a  vicarious  right- 
eousness. In  the  controversy  between  the  Romanists  and 
the  Reformers  this  fact  was  recognized,  the  Romanists  aflSrm- 
ing  that  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  an  inherent  or 
infused  righteousness.  According  to  their  scheme,  the  vica- 
rious sacrifice  of  Christ  procures  for  us  the  taking  away  of 
original  sin  and  the  infusion  of  righteousness.  This  takes 
place  in  baptism,  which  is  the  instrumental  cause.     And  it 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  65 

is  to  this  remission  of  sin  and  renewal  of  nature  that  they 
give  the  name  justification.  When  asked,  however,  on 
what  ground  God  justifies  the  sinner,  the  answer  is :  On  the 
ground  of  inherent  or  infused  righteousness  received  in 
baptism. 

The  ground  of  justification  according  to  the  older  Ar- 
miuians  was  faith,  and  faith  included  or  was  synonymous 
with  evangelical  obedience.  They  believed  that  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  had  the  effect  of  lowering  the  requirements 
of  the  law,  and  that  God,  instead  of  requiring  of  us  full 
obedience  to  the  Adamic  law,  was  pleased  to  count  our 
faith — that  is  to  say,  evangelical  obedience — in  the  room 
of  righteousness. 

The  Socinian  doctrine  of  justification  proceeds  upon  the 
idea  that  God  is  a  Father.  It  ignores  the  obligations  of 
God's  law,  and  denies  therefore  the  divinity  of  Christ's 
person  and  the  expiatory  nature  of  his  work.  It  reduces  the 
gospel  to  the  simple  statement  that  God  forgives  on  the 
ground  of  our  faith  and  repentance. 

2.  Objective. — Those  who  hold  the  subjective  view  as 
to  the  ground  of  justification  agree  in  the  opinion  that  when 
God  pardons  a  sinner  it  is  the  state  of  the  sinner's  mind  to 
which  He  has  respect.  In  other  words,  that  it  is  on  the 
ground  of  something  in  the  sinner  himself.  The  objective 
view  is  the  opposite  of  this.  Those  who  hold  it  maintain 
that  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  what  Christ  has 
done,  and  not  on  the  ground  of  what  we  do. 

The  Wesleyan  Arminians  belong  to  this  class.  Justifica- 
tion is  defined  by  them  to  be  pardon  ;  and  pardon,  they  are 
careful  to  say,  is  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.* 
It  is  true  that  our  subsequent  acceptance  with  God  and  our 
title  to  heaven  is,  according  to  them,  based  on  our  evan- 
gelical obedience  or  obedience  of  faith.  But  the  pardon  of 
oiir  sins  they  strenuously  affirm  to  be  on  the  ground  of  the 

*  "Watson's  Tj.stitnles,"  Part  II.,  chap.  23 
5 


66  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

righteousness  of  Christ.  The  doctriue  of  the  Reformed  con- 
fessions, our  own  among  them,  is  that  we  are  justified  on  the 
ground  of  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  The 
Shorter  Catechism  says  that  "Justification  is  an  act  of 
God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  ac- 
cepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  imputed  to  us."  That  is  to  say,  God  regards 
Christ  as  the  substitute  of  his  people,  both  in  his  active 
and  in  his  passive  obedience.  His  death  is  their  death,  his 
righteousness  their  righteousness.  When  God  pronounces 
men  righteous,  it  is  not  because  of  anything  in  them,  but  on 
the  ground  of  Christ's  righteousness  -svhich  he  imputes  to 
them.  That  this  is  the  scriptural  view  is  proved  by  the  fol- 
lowing considerations. 

(a)  To  justify  is  to  pronounce  righteous.  A  perfect 
righteousness,  therefore,  must  be  the  ground  of  justification. 
And  since  we  have  no  righteousness  of  our  own  which  will 
meet  the  requirements  of  the  law,  that  to  which  God  has 
regard  in  our  justification  must  be  a  vicarious  righteous- 
ness. 

(6)  The  statement  that  Abraham's  faith  was  counted 
imto  him  for  righteousness  does  not  mean  that  he  was  justi- 
fied on  the  ground  of  his  faith,  nor  does  it  sanction  the  doc- 
trine that  our  faith  or  evangelical  obedience  is  taken  in  lieu 
of  a  perfect  obedience  as  the  ground  of  our  justification. 
For  it  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  absurd  to  say  that  God  re- 
gards us  as  righteous  on  the  ground  of  conduct  which  is  un- 
righteous. Nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  the  demands  of  the 
law  are  lowered  through  the  work  of  Christ.  For  while  the 
Scriptures  represent  Christians  as  being  delivered  from  the 
law,  they  never  represent  the  law  itself  as, the  subject  of  any 
change.  We  have  peace  with  God  because  the  demands  of 
the  law  have  been  met,  and  not  because  its  behests  have 
been  made  easier.  If  the  law  has  been  lowered  at  all,  to 
what  extent  has  it  been  lowered  ?     And  if  our  justification 


SUMMARY   OF  DOCTRINE.  ^7 

depends  on  our  obedience,  what  is  the  measure  of  obedience 
neces.^ary?  and  how  shall  we  know  when  we  have  attained 
it?  And  until  we  know,  what  is  the  ground  of  our  peace? 
Besides,  this  view,  as  Dr.  Hodge  says,  "is  dishonoring  to  the 
gospel.  It  supposes  the  gospel  to  be  less  holy  than  the  law 
The  law  requires  perfect  obedience;  the  gospel  is  satisfied 
with  imperfect  obedience."*  "  Do  we  then  make  void  the 
law  through  faith  ?     God  forbid ;  yea,  we  establish  the  law. 

3  It  is  distinctly  stated  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
without  the  works  of  the  law,  and  that  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight.  Both  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  in  that  to  the  Galatians 
Paul  argues  that  justification  is  not  on  the  ground  of  any- 
thing which  we  can  do,  but  on  the  ground  of  what  Christ 

has  done  for  us.  -i    •       i     ^ 

4  The  doctrine  of  our  Catechism  is  necessarily  involved 
in  the  vicarious  character  of  Christ's  work.  If  Christ  died, 
''  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  reconcile  us  to  God 
if  he  came  "to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  (in  the  place  of ) 
many"  if  he  was  "made  sin  for  us,"  if  he  was  "made  a 
cur4  for  us,"-in  a  word,  if  the  death  of  Christ  was  penal 
and  vicarious,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly  teach,  then  it 
would  follow  that  when  God  justifies  the  ungodly  he  has 
regard  to  the  work  which  Christ  has  done  in  our  room  and 

'^^5  But  the  doctrine  of  the  Catechism  is  sustained  by  the 
direct  testimony  of  Scripture.  We  are  "justified  by  his 
blood  "  Rom.  V.  9.  God  hath  set  him  forth  "  to  be  a  pro- 
pitiation through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteous- 
ness for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past  through  the  for- 
bearance of  God,  .  .  .  that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  jus- 
tifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus."  Rom.  m.  25,  2b. 
-  Therefore,  as  bv  the  ofi^ence  of  one  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 
*  "Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  ill.,  p.  169. 


68  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life. 
For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous." 
Rom.  V.  18,  19. 

Paul,  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Romans,  complains  of  his 
brethren  because  they  seek  to  be  justified  by  their  own 
righteousness  :  "  For  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  right- 
eousness, and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteous- 
ness, have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the  righteousness 
of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  every  one  that  believeth."  He  speaks  of  the  blessedness 
of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works  (Rom  iv.  6),  and  in  Philippians  he  expresses  his  desire 
to  "be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness 
which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christ,  the  righteousness  wliich  is  of  God  by  faith." 

To  the  question  with  which  this  chapter  opens  we  reply 
by  saying  that  we  enter  heaven  on  the  ground  of  the  im- 
puted righteousness  of  Christ. 

"  Slain  in  the  guilty  sinner's  stead, 
His  spotless  righteousness  I  plead, 

And  his  availing  hlood; 
Thy  merit.  Lord,  my  robe  shall  be, 
Thy  merit  shall  atone  for  me. 

And  bring  me  near  to  God." 

III.  The  Means  of  Justification. 

We  are  justified  by  faith.  All  Cliristians  will  accept 
this  statement.  Ail  will  not  say,  however,  that  we  are 
justified  by  faith  alone,  nor  would  all  give  the  same  answer 
to  the  question,  How  does  faith  justify?  These  points  must 
now  be  noticed. 

1.  Justification  by  faith  alone. 

The  Bible  says  we  are  justified  by  faith.     Are  we  justi- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  69 

fied  by  anything  else  ?     Is  anything  in  addition  to  faith 
necessary  in  order  to  justification  ? 

Our  catechism  says  that  we  are  justified  by  the  "  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  us  and  received  by  faith  alone." 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Paul  says  that  we  are 
justified  by  faith  without  the  works  of  the  law  ;  that  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified.  By  works  he 
does  not  mean  the  ceremonial  law  or  works  done  before  re- 
generation. His  doctrine  is  tliat  Jew  and  Gentile  are  alike 
under  condemnation  because  they  have  violated  the  law  of 
God,  and  that,  being  under  condemnation,  they  can  do  noth- 
ing to  justify  themselves ;  for  the  law  requires  a  perfect 
obedience,  and  this  they  cannot  render.  In  excluding  works 
from  justification  he  excludes  everything  which  we  can  do. 
He  excludes  faith  itself  so  far  as  it  is  a  work  and  lays 
claim  to  merit.  We  are  not  justified  by  works:  we  are 
justified  by  faith.  There  is  no  discrepancy  between  Paul 
and  James,  though  the  latter  says  that  Abraham  was  jus- 
tified by  works,  and  adds,  "  Ye  see,  then,  how  that  by  works 
a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only."  Because  (a) 
James  is  showing  the  relation  of  works  to  faith,  and  is 
not  discussing  the  question  of  justification.  Saving  faith  is 
followed  by  good  works  ;  where  these  are  wanting  faith  is 
dead.  (6)  James  cannot  mean  that  Abraham  was  pardoned 
and  accepted  when  he  oflTered  Isaac  his  son,  for  he  had  been 
pardoned  and  accepted  long  before.* 
2.  Belation  of  faith  to  justification. 

Men  may  use  the  same  language  and  mean  very  different 
things.  This  is  illustrated  in  the  matter  before  us.  The 
Romanist  believes  that  we  are  justified  by  faith.  But  what 
does  he  mean?  He  has  two  faiths  and  two  justifications. 
In  his  first  justification  original  sin  is  removed  and  right- 
eousness infused.    This  takes  place  in  baptism.    He  believes 

*  See  Cunningluim'js  "Historical  Theology,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  Q>%',  "Bu' 
chanan  on  Justification,"  pp.  239-249 


70  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

that  he  ought  to  be  baptized ;  and  that  being  baptized,  he  is 
justified.  In  this  sense  he  is  justified  by  faith  as  a  pre- 
disponent  to  justification.  This  faith  is  only  intellectual 
assent, /des  informis.  In  his  second  justification  he  receives 
title  to  eternal  life,  and  on  the  ground  of  his  "  works  " — 
that  is  to  say,  of  his  character.  Prominent  among  these 
"  works  "  is  ''  faith."  But  the  word  faith  as  now  employed 
does  not  mean  intellectual  assent.  It  is  synonymous  with 
love.     This  is  fides  formata* 

The  older  Arminians  believed  that  we  are  justified  on  ac- 
count of  our  faith.  Faith  they  considered  as  synonymous 
with  evangelical  obedience,  and  was  regarded  by  them  as 
imputed  to  us  in  the  room  of  righteousness.  Wesleyan 
Arminians  say  that  we  are  justified— meaning  pardoned — on 
condition  of  faith. 

Those  who  hold  the  moral-influence  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment believe  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  ;  but  justification 
means  personal  holiness,  and  faith  justifies  because  it  stim- 
ulates to  Christian  activity.  Faith  is  the  secret  of  success. 
Have  faith  in  a  cause  if  you  wish  to  conquer.  Faith  saves, 
because  by  it  we  overcome  sin.  The  principle  is  true,  but 
the  adoption  of  it  as  an  explanation  of  the  gospel  is  a  funda- 
mental error.  In  opposition  to  these  views  our  standards 
teach  that  "  faith  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not 
because  of  those  other  graces  which  do  always  accompany 
it,  or  of  good  works  that  are  the  fruit  of  it ;  nor  as  if  the 
grace  of  faith  or  any  act  thereof  were  imputed  to  him  for 
justification;  but  only  as  it  is  an  instrument  by  which  he 
receiveth  and  applieth  Christ  and  his  righteousness." — 
Larfjcr  Catechism,  Q.  73. 

*  Hodge,  "  Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  165. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  71 

IV.  The  Effect  of  Justification. 

From  what  has  been  said  respecting  the  nature  and  the 
ground  of  justification  it  will  be  easy  to  infer  what  opinions 
are  entertained  respecting  the  effect  of  justification.     The 
Roman  Catholic  believes  that  the  justification  which  he  re- 
ceives in  baptism  places  him  in  the  condition  whicjh  Adam 
occupied  before  the  fall.    It  does  not  secure  his  continuance 
in  that  state,  however.     His  post-baptismal  sins  render  him 
liable  to  eternal  death  if  mortal,  and  to  the  fires  of  purgatory 
if  venial.     To  escape  eternal  death  and  to  mitigate  the  pun- 
ishments of  purgatory,  it  is   necessary   for  him  to   make 
proper   satisfaction   in  this  life.     It  is  a  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  a  man  may  exceed  the  amount  of 
praying,  fasting  and  almsgiving  requisite  as  a  satisfaction 
for  his  own  sins,  and  thus  have  something  over  which  may 
be  used  for  the  benefit  of  others.     The  Church  of  Rome 
made  merchandise  of  this  excess  in  the  iniquitous  system 
of  indulgences,  the  exposure  of  which  led  to  the  Reforma- 
tion.    The  Arminians  believe  that  justification  is  pardon, 
but  that  it  secures  no  permanent  change  in  our  condition, 
and  gives  no  title  to  heaven.     Our  acceptance  depends  on 
our  persevering  to  the  end,  and  our  salvation  will  be  the 
reward  of  our  obedience.* 

The  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  churches  is 
that  justification  is  a  permanent  change  of  legal  condition. 
The  justified  person  is  no  longer  subject  to  condemnation. 
He  is  saved.  He  hath  eternal  life.  This  is  one  effect  of 
justification.  And,  moreover,  justification  is  always  fol- 
lowed by  sanctification.     Hence  the  Reformers,  when  they 

*  "In  asserting  salvation  by  faith  we  mean  this:  (1)  That  pardon 
rsalvation  begun)  is  received  by  faith  producing  works.  (2)  That 
holiness  (salvation  continued)  is  faith  working  by  love.  (3)  That 
heaven  (salvation  finished)  is  the  reward  of  this  faith."-Wesley's 
*'  Works,"  vol.  v.,  p.  205. 


72  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

affirmed  that  we  are  j  iistified  by  faith  aloue,  were  careful  to 
say  that  the  faith  whicli  justifies  was  never  by  itself.  It 
was  a  fides  sola,  not  a  fides  solitaria.  Grood  works  are  the 
evidence  and  the  effect  of  saving  faith.  This  must  be  so; 
for  we  know  that  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord ;  and  we  know  too  that  whom  he  justifies,  them  he 
also  glorifies. 


KEGENERATION. 


What  is  faith  ?  Belief  But  belief  is  assent  when  it 
terminates  on  a  proposition  and  trust  when  it  terminates  on 
a  person.  I  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration  ; 
I  trust  in  Christ.  The  Romanists,  regarding  faith  as  assent, 
were  in  the  habit  of  charging  the  Reformers  with  believing 
that  men  are  saved  by  bare  intellectual  assent.  The  latter, 
however,  maintained  that  saving  faith  included  trust  as  well 
as  assent ;  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  our  standards.  From 
this  definition  of  faith  the  necessity  of  both  the  external 
and  the  internal  call  may  be  inferred.  The  external  call  is 
necessary  to  faith.  For  says  the  apostle,  "  How  shall  they 
believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?"  The  gos- 
pel must  be  preached  and  the  offer  of  salvation  must  be 
made  before  men  can  believe.  But  is  the  presentation 
of  the  truth  through  the  Word  sufficient  ?  Are  men  will- 
ing to  accept  Christ  as  their  Saviour  even  although  the 
claims  of  the  gospel  are  pressed  upon  their  attention?  We 
have  found  that  men  are  "  indisposed,  disabled,  made  oppo- 
site to  all  good  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  This  is 
their  condition  by  nature.  While  they  remain  in  this  con- 
dition can  they  exercise  faith  ?  Can  they  rest  on  Christ 
alone   for   salvation?     Sin,  we   found,  has   produced   two 


SUM3fARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  73 

great  results.  It  has  made  man  guilty.  A  scheme  of  sal- 
vation must  therefore  provide  for  his  deliverance  from  con- 
demnation. We  have  seen  how  this  was  done.  But  sin 
has  likewise  debased  our  nature ;  it  has  caused  spiritual 
death.  A  scheme  of  salvation  must  provide  also  for  our 
change  of  nature.  This  moral  change  is  necessary  in  order 
that  we  may  avail  ourselves  of  the  remedy  provided  for  our 
legal  liabilities.  For  to  be  justified  we  must  have  faith. 
But  there  is  a  barrier  to  the  exercise  of  faith — to  wit :  that 
we  are  spiritually  dead.  Noav,  it  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
to  effect  the  moral  change  whereby  we  are  persuaded  and 
enabled  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  offered  to  us  in  the 
gospel.  This  change  he  accomplishes  in  "  effectual  calling," 
and  the  result  itself  is  termed  regeneration.  We  are  to 
consider  regeneration  first  as  to  its  nature  and  secondly  as 
to  its  mode. 

I.  Nature  of  Regeneration. 
It  is  an  instantaneous,  radical  and  permanent  change  in 
the  moral  nature,  in  virtue  of  which  the  subject  is  said  to 
be  born  again,  to  be  a  new  creature,  to  be  raised  from  the 
dead.  It  is  instantaneous,  for  it  is  a  transition  from  death 
to  life ;  it  is  radical  for  the  same  reason  ;  it  is  permanent, 
for  the  life  imparted  in  regeneration  is  immortal.  Whom 
he  calls  he  justifies,  whom  he  justifies  he  glorifies.  The 
change  affects  the  whole  soul.  The  mind  is  enlightened  in 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  the  will  is  renewed,  and  we  are 
persuaded  and  enabled  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  of- 
fered to  us  in  the  gospel.  It  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  the  soul  is  passive  in  regeneration.  A  dead  man 
cannot  be  instrumental  in  his  own  resurrection.  The  soul 
is  regenerated  ;  it  never  regenerates  itself.  We  are  com- 
manded to  repent,  but  not  to  be  regenerated.  Regenera- 
tion  is  necessary  to  salvation,  but  it  is  not  a  duty  This 
view  of  regeneration  is  proved — 


74  SUM3fARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

1.  From  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity.  If  it  is  true, 
this  follows  of  necessity. 

2.  This  is  taught  in  the  second  chapter  of  Ephesians, 
where  spiritual  life,  as  the  antithesis  of  spiritual  death,  is  at- 
tributed to  divine  power:  "But  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy, 
for  his  great  love  wherewith  he  hath  loved  us  when  we  were 
dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  v/ith  Christ  (by 
grace  ye  are  saved),  and  hath  raised  us  up  together,  and 
made  us  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus." 

3.  It  is  involved  in  other  statements  of  Scripture :  We 
must  be  born  again.  "If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new 
creature."  "  We  are  his  workmanship."  It  follows,  there- 
fore— 

(a)  That  regeneration  is  not  a  change  of  external  relation. 
This  was  Archbishop  Whately's  view,  and  it  is  the  view  of 
others  in  the  Church  of  England,  who  understand  baptismal 
regeneration  to  mean  nothing  more  than  that  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  the  subject  becomes  externally  related  to 
the  Church. 

[h)  It  is  not  a  change  of  purpose,  as  theologians  of  the 
New  Haven  school  suppose;  for  the  "purpose"  presupposes 
the  moral  change  in  which  regeneration  consists. 

(c)  It  is  not  moral  reformation.  Birth  is  different  from 
growth.  Resurrection  is  different  from  the  life  which  fol- 
lows it.  Spiritual  growth  follows  regeneration,  but  regen- 
eration is  the  word  which  expresses  the  change  from  death 
to  life. 

(rf)  Nor  is  regeneration  the  same  as  conversion.  The 
regenerated  person  turns  to  God — i.  e.,  is  converted.  The 
soul  is  active  in  conversion,  passive  in  regeneration.  Con- 
version is  the  fruit  of  regeneration. 

II.  The  Mode  of  Kegeneration. 

The  agent  in  regeneration  is  the  third  Person  of  the  bless- 
ed and  adorable  Trinity,     "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  list- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  75 

eth  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell 
whence  it  coraeth  or  whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that 
is  born  of  the  Spirit."  John  iii.  8.  "  Not  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Tit.  iii.  4,  5. 

The  doctrine  is  stated  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  in  the 
following  terms:  "All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated 
unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and 
accepted  time,  effectually  to  call  by  his  word  and  Spirit  out 
of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature, 
to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their 
minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things 
of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto 
them  an  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his 
almighty  power  determining  them  to  that  which  is  good, 
and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ;  yet  so  as 
they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace. 
This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone, 
not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether 
passive  therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and 
to  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it." — Con- 
fession of  Faith,  chap,  x.,  §  1,  2. 

The  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneixition  is  immediate, 
sovereign  and  efficacious. 

1.  Immediate. — The  change  wrought  in  regeneration  is 
through  the  direct  exercise  of  divine  power.  Lutherans 
dispute  this  proposition.  They  do  not  believe  in  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Spirit  except  through  the  Word.  They  hold 
that  there  is  virtue  in  the  Word  which,  if  not  resisted,  will 
result  in  the  conversion  of  those  to  whom  it  is  preached. 
This,  however,  cannot  be  the  true  state  of  the  case,  for  the 
objective  presentation  of  the  truth  to  a  man  spiritually 
dead  is  surely  not  sufficient.     Besides,  th^  Scriptures  dis- 


76  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

tinctly  say  that  it  is  not  sufficient,  for  they  affirm  that 
"the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually 
discerned."  ICor.  ii.  14.  The  Scriptures  distinguish,  more- 
over, between  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  and  that  of  the 
Word.  "  Who,  then,  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  min- 
isters by  whom  ye  have  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  man  ?  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered,  but  God 
gave  the  increase."  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  6.  That  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  in  regeneration  is  by  direct  agency,  and  not 
through  the  moral  influence  of  the  truth,  is  seen  in  passages 
like  the  following :  "  For  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you 
both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  Phil.  ii.  13. 
"  In  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves : 
if  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance  to  the 
acknowledging  of  the  truth."  2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

2.  Sovereign. — Regeneration  is  a  sovereign  act  of  God's 
Spirit,  who  works  when  and  where  he  pleases.  It  is  not  on 
the  ground  of  anything  that  a  man  does,  or  that  God  fore- 
sees he  will  do,  that  he  regenerates  him.  Romanists,  and 
those  who  hold  high  sacramentarian  views,  maintain  that 
baptism  is  necessary  to  regeneration.  This  dogma  is  both 
extra-scriptural  and  unscriptural,  however.  The  Bible 
does  not  teach  baptismal  regeneration,  but  it  teaches  the 
contrary.  Baptism,  we  know,  does  not  secure  salvation  ; 
regeneration  does.  Whom  he  calls  (regenerates)  he  justi- 
fies, whom  he  justifies  he  gh)rifies.  The  salvation  of  infants 
is  not  jeoparded  by  neglect  of  baptism.  But  "  elect  in- 
fants, dying  in  infancy"  (and  we  believe  that  all  infants 
dying  in  infancy  are  elect),  "are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  wlien  and  where 
and  how  he  pleasetli." — Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  x.,  §  3. 

3.  Efficacious. — Regeneration  is  the  result  of  a  direct 
exercise  of  divine  power.  The  soul  is  ])assive.  There  can 
be  no  co-working  in  regeneration.     This  view  is  opposed  bj 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  77 

those  who  hold  Semi-Pelagian  views  respecting  sin,  and  who 
maintain  that  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration  con- 
sists in  moral  suasion.  The  best  way  to  reply  to  this  view 
is  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  A  dead  man  is  not 
in  a  position  to  be  influenced  by  moral  suasion.  Besides,  it 
is  strange  that  the  Scriptures  should  say  that  we  are  created 
in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  that  we  are  born  of  the 
Spirit,  and  that  we  are  raised  from  the  dead,  if  they  meant 
only  to  teach  that  the  Spirit  presents  arguments  and  motives 
for  our  consideration.  The  Arminians  believe  in  total  de- 
pravity, but  maintain  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  present 
with  every  man,  granting  him  sufficient  grace  to  enable  him 
to  attain  eternal  life,  and  that  the  difference  between  a  be- 
liever and  an  unbeliever  is  that  one  co-operates,  and  the 
other  does  not  co-operate,  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  To 
which  it  is  enough  to  reply  that  if  men  are  dead  they  cannot 
co-operate,  and  if  they  are  alive  they  need  yiot  co-operate, 
for  they  are  already  regenerated. 

Regeneration  is  God's  act ;  conversion  is  man's.  Con- 
version follows  regeneration,  and  is  evidenced  by  faith  and 
repentance. 

"  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a  saving  grace  whereby  we 
receive  and  rest  upon  him  alone  for  salvation  as  he  is 
offered  to  us  in  the  gospel." 

"  Repentance  unto  life  is  a  saving  grace  whereby  a  sin- 
ner, out  of  a  true  sense  of  his  sin  and  apprehension  of  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  doth,  with  grief  and  hatred  of  sin, 
turn  from  it  unto  God,  with  full  purpose  of  and  endeavor 
after  new  obedience."  * 

*  "Shorter  Catechism,"  Q,  86,  87. 


SUiMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 


ELECTION. 

To  be  saved  we  must  be  justified  ;  to  be  justified  we  must 
believe ;  to  believe  we  must  be  regenerated.  God  regener- 
ates. All  regenerated  persons  are  saved.  Those  who  die 
un regenerated  perish.  Thus  we  are  led  to  a  consideration 
of  the  doctrine  of  election.  On  this  subject  two  contra- 
dictory opinions  are  entertained.  Calvinists  affirm,  Ar- 
minians  deny,  that  God  for  his  own  glory  has  from  all 
eternity  elected  some  to  everlasting  life.  Every  man  who 
has  an  opinion  on  this  subject  must  be,  at  least  so  far  as 
this  doctrine  is  concerned,  an  Arminian  or  a  Calvinist.* 

I.  Arminian  View. 

Arminians  agree  in  saying  that  the  Bible  speaks  of  an 
election  of  some  sort.  They  agree  in  saying  that  it  does 
not  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  sovereign  election  of  individuals 
to  eternal  life.  But  they  are  not  agreed  in  respect  to  what 
the  Bible  doctrine  of  election  is.  They  fall  into  two 
classes. 

1.  Those  who  maintain  that  the  election  spoken  of  in 
the  Bible  is  an  election  to  the  external  privileges  of  the 
Church.  God,  they  say,  has  shed  gospel  light  on  some 
parts  of  the  world  and  kept  the  remainder  in  darkness.  He 
has  elected  some  to  the  enjoyment  of  Christian  privileges, 
while  others  are  in  a  state  of  heathenism.  This  election 
does  not  secure  salvation,  though  it  confers  great  advan- 
tages on  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it.f     But  it  is  very 

*  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  point,  see  Principal  Cunningham's 
masterly  essay  on  Calvinism  and  Arminianisra  in  his  "  Reformers 
and  Theology  of  the  Reformation." 

f  "So,  also,  we  may  conclude  no  Christian  is  elected  to  eternal 
salvation  absolutely,  but  only  to  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  to  the 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  79 

clear  that  the  election  spoken  of  in  'the  Bible  is  an  election 
which  secures  salvation.  Whom  God  predestinates  he  calls, 
whom  he  calls  he  justifies,  whom  he  justifies  he  glorifies. 
It  is  an  election  of  those  "  whom  he  had  afore  prepared 
unto  glory,"  "  whom  he  had  chosen,  that  they  should  be 
holy  and  without  blame,"  of  those  whom  he  had  "  predes- 
tinated to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son."  This  the- 
ory of  election  does  not  explain  the  facts,  and  therefore 
falls  to  the  ground. 

2.  Those  who  maintain  that  God  elects  to  everlasting 
life  those  who,  he  foresees,  will  repent  and  believe  in  Christ. 
But  this  view  is  equally  unsatisfactory ;  for  so  far  from 
our  election  proceeding  on  the  ground  of  a  foreseen  faith, 
faith  itself  is  the  gift  of  God.  God  does  not  elect  us  be- 
cause he  foresees  that  we  shall  repent  and  persevere  in  holi- 
ness, inasmuch  as  the  reason  that  we  have  repented  is  that 
he  "  hath  granted  "  unto  us  "  repentance  unto  life ;"  and  the 
reason  that  we  persevere  is  that  we  are  "  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works."  Election  is  not  on  the  ground  of 
a  foreseen  faith,  but  on  account  of  God's  good  pleasure, 
"  who  hath  saved  us  and  called  us  with  an  holy  calling,  not 
according  to  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world 
began."  2  Tim.  i.  9. 

II.  Calvinistic  View. 

The  Calvinistic  doctrine  assumes  three  forms. 

1.  SuPRALAPSARiAN. — According  to  this  view,  the  decree 
of  election  takes  precedence  of  the  decree  of  creation. 
Out  of  the  mass  of  creatable  men  God  elects  some  aud 
reprobates   others  for   his  own  glory.     To  carry  out  this 

privileges  of  the  Christian  Church,  to  the  offer  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  and  to  the  promise  of  final  salvation  on  condition  of  being  a 
faithful  follower  of  Christ."— Whately's  "  Essay  on  Certain  Difficul- 
ties in  the  Writings  of  St.  Paul." 


80  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

decree  he  created  maii  and  permitted  him  to  fall.  This 
view  is  not  commonly  entertained.  It  presents  metaphys- 
ical difficulties  to  begin  with.*  It  is  unsupported  by  the 
word  of  God,  and  contrary  to  it.  It  requires  us  to  believe 
that  God  has  reprobated  seme  of  the  human  race  without 
regard  to  their  sins,  whereas  the  Scriptures  teach  that, 
while  God  saves  some  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  those 
who  are  passed  by  are  punished  on  account  of  their  sins. 

2.  SuBLAPSARiAN. — The  advocates  of  this  view  main- 
tain that  the  decree  of  election  contemplates  man  as  fallen. 
Out  of  the  mass  of  fallen  humanity  God  has  predestinated 
some,  they  say,  to  eternal  life.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  our 
standards,  and,  we  believe,  of  the  Scriptures.  "  God  hav- 
ing, out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant 
of  grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and 
misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  salvation  by  a 
Redeemer."  f 

3.  Infralapsarian. — This  is  the  view  which  w^as  ad- 
vocated by  the  French  Protestant  theologians  at  Saumur 
"  during  the  second  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century." 
It  contemplates  man  not  only  as  created  and  fallen,  but  as 
redeemed.  Its  advocates  say  that  God  decreed  to  create 
man  ;  to  permit  the  fall ;  to  provide  a  salvation  for  all  men 
through  Jesus  Christ  on  condition  of  faith  and  repentance ; 
but,  foreseeing  that  none  would  accept  Christ,  that  he  de- 
creed to  give  faith  and  repentance  to  some.  This  view  in- 
volves a  denial  of  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  atonement, 
and  is  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  that  Christ  laid  down 
his  life  for  his  sheep. 

The  advocates  of  these  three  views  ^gree  in  affirming 
that  election  is  (1)  of  individuals,  (2)  to  eternal  life,  (3j  of 
God's  mere  good  pleasure  and  not  on  account  of  a  foreseen 

*  For  a  discussion  of  them,  see  Turretine,  loc.  iv.,  qusest.  ix. 
t  "  Sh(5rter  Catechism,"  Q.  2a 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  81 

faith.  These  are  the  essential  elements  in  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  election.  This  doctrine  is  proved  by  the  fol- 
lowing considerations : 

1.  It  follows  from  the  doctrine  of  regeneration.  This  is 
obvious. 

2.  Faith  and  repentance  are  gifts  of  God,  but  they  are 
necessary  to  salvation. 

3.  It  is  specifically  affirmed  in  Scripture :  "  Whom  he 
did  foreknow  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son,"  etc.  Rom.  viii.  29.  "  According  as 
he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame,"  etc. 
Eph.  i.  4.  "  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you 
unto  salvation,"  etc.  2  Thess.  xi.  13. 

4.  It  is  proved  by  the  objection  which  Paul  answers  in 
the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans.  The  most  common  objection 
to  this  doctrine  is  that  it  destroys  responsibility.  This  is 
precisely  the  one  which  Paul  anticipates :  "  Thou  wilt  say 
then  unto  me,  AVhy  doth  he  yet  find  fault?  For  who  hath 
resisted  his  will?  Nay,  but,  O  man,  who  art  thou  that 
repliest  against  God  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him 
that  formed  it.  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  Hath  not 
the  potter  power  over  the  clay  of  the  same  lump  to  make 
one  vessel  unto  honor  and  another  unto  dishonor?  What 
if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath  and  to  make  his  power 
known,  endured  with  much  long-suflTering  the  vessels  of 
wrath  fitted  to  destruction,  and  that  he  might  make  known 
the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy  which  he 
had  afore  prepared  unto  glory  ?" 

5.  It  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  decrees.  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  says,  chap.  iii. :  "  God  from  all  eternity  did 
by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will  freely 
and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;  yet  so 
as  thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or 

6 


82  SmiMARY  OF  DOCTRINE, 

contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  estab- 
lished." 

Election  is  simply  part  of  God's  eternal  purpose.  That 
God's  purpose  is  eternal  and  that  it  extends  to  every  event 
the  Scriptures  clearly  teach.  God  notices  the  fall  of  a 
sparrow.  He  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  head.  He  disposes 
of  the  lot.  Every  good  and  perfect  gift  comes  from  him. 
He  directs  our  steps.  He  controls  the  free  acts  of  men, 
giving  faith,  granting  repentance  unto  life,  working  in  us 
to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.  The  wicked  acts  of 
men  are  foreordained  and  overruled.  Christ  was  delivered 
by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God. 
Joseph's  brethren  were  carrying  out  God's  purpose  when 
they  sold  him  :  "  God  sent  me  before  you  to  preserve  you  a 
posterity  in  the  earth,  and  to  save  your  lives  by  a  great  de- 
liverance." Gen.  xlv.  7.  He  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.  Moreover, 
foreordi nation  is  involved  in  foreknowledge.  It  is  admitted 
by  all,  except  Socinians,  that  God  from  all  eternity  has 
foreknown  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  If  God  has  fore- 
known every  event,  then  every  event  has  been  fixed  and  de- 
termined from  all  eternity.  God  from  all  eternity  foresaw 
the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  The  crucifixion  was  inevitable, 
therefore,  and  God  knew  from  all  eternity  that  it  would 
certainly  occur.  What  made  it  certain  ?  There  is  only 
one  answer:  It  formed  part  of  God's  eternal  purpose 
"  whereby  for  his  own  glory  he  hath  foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass." 

The  common  objections  to  this  doctrine  are — 
1.  That  it  represents  God  as  dealing  unjustly.  But  this 
is  not  the  case.  It  would  have  been  just  for  God  to  have 
left  the  world  to  perish  in  its  sins.  This  must  be  admit- 
ted if  the  atonement  is  believed  in.  There  is  no  need  of 
and  no  mercy  in  an  atonement  if  the  punishment  of  sin 
would  have  been  an  injustice.     But  if  God  might  justly 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  ^3 

have  left  the  whole  world  to  perish,  who  shall  challenge  his 
prerogative  to  have  mercy  on  as  many  as  he  pleases  ? 

2.  It  is  said  to  destroy  free  agency.  This  must  be  be- 
cause it  makes  our  actions  certain  ;  but  so  does  foreknow- 
ledge. If  certainty  is  incompatible  with  free  agency,  the 
objection  is  involved  against  foreordination,  as  foreknowledge 
is  foreordination.  Certainty  and  liberty  are  not  incompat- 
ible. God  is  free,  but  it  is  certain  that  he  will  not  do  wrong. 
Christ  was  free,  but  it  was  certain  that  he  would  not  sin. 

3.  It  is  said  to  make  the  use  of  means  unnecessary. 
Popularly  stated  :  "  If  I  am  to  be  saved,  I  shall  be  saved 
no  matter  what  I  am ;  if  I  am  to  be  lost,  I  shall  be  lost,  do 
what  I  may."  The  mistake  arises  out  of  the  fact  that  God's 
decree  embraces  every  event,  that  he  foreordains  the  means 
as  well  as  the  end.  If  God  decrees  the  salvation  of  a  soul, 
he  decrees  that  he  shall  hear,  heed  and  believe  the  gospel. 
In  like  manner,  if  God  decrees  that  there  shall  be  an  abun- 
dant harvest,  he  decrees  that  the  farmer  shall  prepare  the 
soil,  sow  the  seed,  and  that  favorable  influences  shall  com- 
bine to  produce  the  result. 

What  practical  influence  should  the  doctrine  of  election 
exert  upon  the  children  of  God?  It  should  make  them 
humble :  "  By  the  grace  of  God  we  are  what  we  are."  It 
should  make  them  grateful,  for  what  have  we  that  we 
have  not  received?  It  should  make  them  confident,  for 
faith  is  the  pledge  that  God  hath  "  chosen  them  unto  sal- 
vation." 

"  Why  was  I  made  to  hear  thy  voice 
And  enter  while  there's  room, 
While  thousands  make  a  wretched  choice, 
And  rather  starve  than  come  ? 

"  'Twas  the  same  love  that  spread  the  feast 
That  sweetly  forced  me  in, 
Else  I  had  still  refused  to  taste, 
And  perished  in  my  sin." 


84  SU3nfARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 


SANCTIFICATION. 

Regeneration  is  related  to  sanctification  as  birth  is  to 
growth.  The  soul's  new  life  begins  at  regeneration.  Its 
development  in  spiritual  strength  and  stature  is  its  sancti- 
fication. We  are  here  using  the  words  regeneration  and 
sanctification  in  the  subjective  sense  to  denote  the  state  of 
being  regenerated  and  sanctified.  They  are  also  used  in 
the  objective  sense  to  denote  the  agency  or  process  by 
which  we  are  brought  into  this  state,  though  the  objective 
side  of  regeneration  is  expressed  in  our  standards  by  the 
term  "  effectual  calling."  Let  us  consider  sanctification 
first  subjectively  and  then  objectively. 

I.  Subjectively  Considered. 
Sanctification  is  moral  transformation,  and  is  altogether 
diflferent  from  justification,  which  is  only  a  change  of  legal 
condition.  At  regeneration  the  Christian  begins  to  lead  a 
new  life — a  better,  but  not  a  sinless,  life.  Though  a  new 
nature  has,  so  to  speak,  been  grafted  upon  the  soul,  the  old 
nature  is  not  dead.  The  fruits  of  sin  and  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit  hang  side  by  side.  Recovery  from  disease  is  not  ef- 
fected in  a  day.  The  patient  is  feeble  long  after  all  danger 
is  past.  So  with  the  soul's  convalescence.  And  it  has  not 
only  been  sick,  but  dead — dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. 
Sanctification  is  a  gradual  change  of  character;  it  is  a 
putting  ofl^  of  the  old  man,  which  is  "corrupt,  according  to 
the  deceitful  lusts,"  and  a  putting  on  of  "  the  new  man, 
which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness,  and  true  holi- 
ness." In  regeneration  the  child  of  God  becomes  "a  new 
creature,"  and  this  becomes  more  apparent  as  sanctification 
goes  on.  He  is  the  subject  of  new  feelings,  new  pleasures, 
new  motives,  new  aims.     "  Old  things   are  passed  away." 


SUM3fARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  85 

His  is  not  so  new,  however,  that  he  loses  his  individuality 
or  ceases  to  be  himself.     Sanetification    makes  Christians 
like  Christ,  but  does  not  destroy  the  differences  which  dis- 
tinguish one  Christian  from  another  *     The  agency  of  the 
Eloly  Ghost  is  present  in  sanetification  as  in  regeneration— 
with  this  difference,  however,  that  the  Christian  co-operates 
with  the  Spirit  in  sanetification.     Sanetification  is  a  duty. 
We  are  commanded  to  "  grow  in  grace."     The  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  alone  is  not  responsible  for  neglect  of 
personal  piety.     The  Christian  is  commanded  to  be  holy ; 
and  that  he  may  attain  holiness  he  is  to  be  actively  en- 
gaged striving  against  sin.     Christian  life  is  a  warfare,  and 
he  is  to  put  on  the  whole  armor  of  God.     It  is  a  race,  and 
he  is  to  lay  aside  every  weight.     The  Christian  is  both  a 
sinner  and  a  saint--a  sinner,  however  great  his  attainments 
in  holiness,  and  a  saint  notwithstanding  his  sins.     It  is  cer- 
tain that  while  he  lives  he  will  not  be  free  from  sin  ;  it  is 
iust  as  certain  that  he  will  not  fall  away  from  grace.     But 
we  are  assuming  the  truth  of  doctrines  which  merit  a  more 
explicit  statement.     Three  great  questions  claim  attention 
here:  An tinomianism.  Perfectionism  and  the  Perseverance 

of  the  Saints. 

1.  Antinomianism.— Some  have  perverted  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith,  and  have  held  that  as  they 
are  released  from  the  law  as  the  ground  of  justification 
they  are  under  no  obligation  to  keep  it.  This  does  not 
disprove  the  doctrine,  however.  Men  did  the  same  thing 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  The  Epistle  of  James  was 
aimed  at  Antinomian  error.  Some  have  said  that  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  belittles  conduct,  which,  as 
Matthew  Arnold  says,  is  three-fourths  of  life.  But  this 
does  not  disprove  the  doctrine.     Paul  had  the  same  objec- 

*  The  fig  tree,  formerly  unfruitful,  now  becomes  fruitful ;  but  the 
rose  never  becomes  the  grape,  the  sanctified  Peter  never  a  James  or 
a  John,— Van  Oosterzee's  "Christian  Dogmatics,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  658. 


86  SU3IMAEY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

tioD  to  meet:  "What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  forbid."  Some 
charge  upon  those  who  preach  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  a  disregard  of  holiness  as  a  pre-requisite  of  heaven,, 
and  speak  boastingly  of  themselves  as  the  special  apostles 
of  personal  piety.  The  charge  is  a  slander  and  the  boast  a 
mistake. 

The  Christian  is  under  the  deepest  obligation  to  obey  the 
law  of  God,  and  is  urged  by  the  strongest  motives  to  strive 
after  holiness. 

1.  This  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  law ;  it  is  the  ex- 
pression of  God's  will — a  transcript  of  his  nature.  It  tells 
man  what  he  ought  to  do.  To  break  that  law  is  to  sin,  and 
a  scheme  of  salvation  which  would  license  sin  is  inconceiv- 
able. 

2.  We  are  commanded  to  be  holy,  to  put  off  the  old  man 
and  put  on  the  new,  to  give  diligence,  to  add  to  our  faith, 
virtue,  etc.  Our  Saviour  prays  that  his  disciples  may  be 
sanctified,  and  Paul  prays  for  the  Thessalonians  that  the 
very  God  of  peace  would  sanctify  them  wholly. 

3.  It  is  the  Christian's  nature  to  live  a  life  of  growing 
holiness.  He  has  been  delivered  from  the  power  of  dark- 
ness and  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son. 
He  was  dead  m  sin,  he  is  now  dead  to  sin.  "  How  shall  we 
who  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?"  That  a  man 
should  find  in  justification  by  faith  an  apology  for  moral 
laxity  would  be  convincing  proof  that  he  had  never  been 
born  again. 

4.  It  is  distinctly  declared  that  without  holiness  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord. 

5.  The  Christian  is  influenced  by  the  motive  of  gratitude. 
If  we  are  saved  by  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  a  life  of 
consecration  is  a  very  obvious  duty.  "For  we  thus  judge 
that  if  one  died  fo;  all,  then  were  all  dead,  and  that  he 
died  for  all  that  we  who  live  should  not  U*uiceforth  live 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  87 

unto  ourselves,  but  unto  him  who  died  for  us  and  rose 
again." 

6.  And  he  is  influenced  by  another  motive ;  for  while  we 
are  not  saved  on  account  of  our  works,  we  are  judged  by 
our  works.  In  no  sense  are  men  saved  by  works.  They 
enter  heaven  only  on  the  ground  of  the  imputed  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  But  they  are  rewarded  with  higher  or 
lower  degrees  of  blessedness  according  to  their  conduct  here : 
"  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body 
according  to  that  he  hath  done  whether  it  be  good  or  bad." 
1  Cor.  V.  10. 

2.  Perfectionism. — We  ought  to  be  like  Christ ;  this 
is  the  Christian's  aim.  "We  are  to  be  like  Christ ;  this  is 
the  Christian's  hope.  But  perfection  is  not  attainable  in 
this  life :  "  No  luere  man,  since  the  fall,  is  able  in  this  life 
perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God ;  but  doth 
daily  break  them  in  thought,  word  and  deed." 

The  proof  of  this  is  found — 

1.  In  the  experience  of  Paul.  In  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Romans  he  says :  "  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the 
inward  man  ;  but  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity 
to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  my  members."  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians  he  says  :  "  Not  as  though  I  had  already 
attained,  either  were  already  perfect ;  but  I  follow  after,  if 
that  I  may  apprehend  that  for  which  I  also  am  apprehend- 
ed of  Christ  Jesus."  Paul's  humility  makes  the  claim  of 
perfection  on  the  part  of  a  Christian  seem  like  presumption. 

2.  We  read  :  "  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  1  John  i.  8. 

3.  Our  Lord  gave  his  disciples  a  model  for  prayer,  and  it 
contains  the  petition,  "  Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we  forgive 
our  debtors."  The  perfect  Christian,  however,  cannot  offer 
that  prayer. 


88  SUM3IARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

4.  Christian  experience  is  opposed  to  the  doctrine.  Does 
any  Christian  suppose  that  he  is  as  like  Christ  as  he  will 
be?  Is  there  a  man  living  who  for  a  moment  supposes 
that  all  his  thoughts,  words  and  actions  conform  to  the  law 
of  God  ?  The  truth  is  that  if  by  sin  is  meant  "  any  want 
of  conformity  unto  or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,"  and 
if  by  the  law  of  God  is  understood  the  law  given  to  Adam, 
there  is  not  a  perfectionist  in  the  world.  Perfectionist 
theories  are  based  on  false  views  of  sin  or  false  views  of  the 
law.  Let  it  be  shown  that  the  law  by  which  we  are  bound 
is  the  moral  law  as  it  was  given  to  Adam  without  abate- 
ment or  change,  let  it  be  shown  that  sin  is  any  want  of  con- 
formity unto  as  well  as  transgression  of  this  law,  and  Per- 
fectionism becomes  transparently  absurd. 

3.  Perseverance  of  the  Saints. — The  angels  rejoice 
over  the  sinner's  repentance.  They  are  not  disappointed. 
The  sinner  who  once  accepts  Christ  in  a  living  faith  never 
forsakes  him.  Spiritual  life  may  languish,  but  it  never 
dies. 

On  this  point  Calvinists  and  Arminians  hold  opposite 
opinions.  The  Calvinistic  position  is  well  stated  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith  :  "  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in 
his  Beloved,  effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit, 
can  neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of 
grace,  but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end  and 
be  eternally  saved."     This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

1.  It  follows  from  the  statements  which  teach  a  present 
salvation.  "  He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life."  "  We 
have  passed  from  death  unto  life."  "  There  is  now  no  con- 
demnation." These  statements  could  not  be  made  regard- 
ing Christians  if  their  ultimate  salvation  were  uncertain. 

2.  We  read  that  whom  he  "  calls  he  justifies,  and  whom 
he  justifies  he  glorifies."  Every  Christian  is  therefore  sure 
of  glory. 

o,  The  Bible  says  that  he  who  believes  shall  be  saved. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  89 

It  also  says :  "  Without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord." 
This  doctrine  harmonizes  these  passages,  as  it  teaches  that 
every  believer  will  persevere  in  holiness. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  Perseverance  is  necessary  to  account 
for  the  strong  language  of  confidence  employed  by  the  apos- 
tle Paul :  "  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness  ;"  "  I  know  whom  I  have  believed,"  etc. ;  "  I 
am  persuaded  that  nothing  shall  separate  me  from  the  love 
of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord."  Paul  was  not 
self-righteous  or  self-confident.  His  assurance  was  based  on 
the  evidence  that  God  had  chosen  him  to  obtain  salvation. 

5.  It  follows  of  necessity  from  the  doctrine  of  election. 
God  has  chosen  some  to  everlasting  life.  He  has  chosen 
them  to  salvation  through  faith.  Faith  is  the  fruit  of  re- 
generation, and  regeneration  is  the  proof  of  election.  A 
living  faith  is  a  guarantee  of  election.  This  is  necessarily 
so,  for  all  who  believe  are  saved  ;  but  none  are  saved  who 
are  not  elected.  Therefore  all  who  believe  are  elected. 
Hence  those  who  are  regenerated  never  die.  "  The  gifts 
and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance."  They  are  not 
revoked. 

6.  The  Scriptures  affirm  the  doctrine  :  "  I  will  give  unto 
them  eternal  life,  and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  shall 
any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand."  John  x.  28.  "  He 
who  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until 
the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  Phil.  i.  6. 

The  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  very 
precious  and  very  comforting  to  the  child  of  God,  but  it 
does  not  encourage  indolence  or  pride.  Along  with  this 
doctrine  comes  the  exhortation  to  "  give  diligence  to  make 
your  calling  and  election  sure,"  and  the  caution,  "  Let  him 
that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he  fall."  Nor  is  it 
by  any  inherent  strength  that  he  resists  temptation  and 
perseveres  in  a  holy  life.  He  is  kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faitl   unto  salvation. 


90  SUM3IARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

II.  Objectively  Considered. 
Our  catechism  says  that  sanctification  is  a  work  of  God'a 
free  grace,  whereby  we  are  renewed  in  the  whole  man  after 
the  image  of  God,  and  are  enabled  more  and  more  to  die 
unto  sin  and  to  live  unto  righteousness. 

1.  It  is  eifected  by  divine  agency.  This  is  the  uniform 
testimony  of  Scripture.  The  Father  sanctifies,  the  Son 
sanctifies,  the  Spirit  sanctifies.  1  Thess.  v.  23 ;  Heb.  xiii. 
20,  21 ;  Tit.  ii.  14 ;  Eph.  v.  25.  But  it  is  especially  attributed 
to  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity.  In  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion each  jDcrson  of  the  Trinity  is  especially  concerned. 
The  Father  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son ;  the  Son  loved  us, 
and  died  to  expiate  our  guilt;  the  Spirit  loved  us,  and 
made  his  abode  in  us,  taking  of  the  things  that  are  Christ's 
and  showing  them  to  us.  To  his  gracious  influence  the 
Christian  owes  not  only  the  new  birth,  but  grovvth  in  grace. 
Our  growth  in  grace  is  a  very  diflTerent  thing  from  moral 
reformation.  It  is  not  by  culture,  development  or  building 
up  of  manhood  that  souls  grow  in  grace.  The  preaching 
which  fails  to  recognize  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
not  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  however  fully  and  eloquently 
it  may  urge  upon  men  a  life  and  conversation  becoming  the 
gospel. 

2.  It  is  a  work. 

It  is  to  the  continued  presence  of  God's  Spirit  that 
Christians  are  indebted  for  their  advances  in  holiness.  We 
are  in  Christ,  and  being  in  him  derive  spiritual  sustenance : 
"As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide 
in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye  except  ye  abide  in  me."  And 
being  uuited  to  Christ  the  Spirit  abides  with  us,  and  our 
bodies  are  made  the  temples  of  the  living  God.  The  Holy 
Ghost  does  not  remove  all  trace  of  sin  when  lie  regenerates 
us,  as  Roman  Catliolics  teach.  Hence  regeneration  is  only 
the  beginning  of  a  process  which  ends  in  complete  sanctifies- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  91 

tion.  Nor  does  he  implant  a  germ  of  holiness  and  leave  it  to 
fight  its  way  against  opposing  influences.  It  is  by  no  in- 
herent vitality  that  the  soul  perseveres  in  a  holy  life.  We 
need  the  sanctifying  and  reviving  influences  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  In  times  of  spiritual  declension  we  pray,  "  O  Lord, 
revive  thy  work."  At  all  times  we  pray,  "Lord,  increase 
our  faith." 

3.  The  Spirit  works  through  means.  Our  Saviour  prayed, 
"  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth  :  thy  word  is  truth." 
Hence  sanctification  is  a  duty,  and  we  are  responsible  for 
the  use  we  make  of  the  means  of  grace.  The  outward  and 
ordinary  means  are  the  word,  sacraments  and  prayer. 


THE  MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

When  our  Lord  had  raised  the  maiden  from  the  dead, 
*'  he  commanded  that  something  be  given  her  to  eat."  This 
illustrates  the  difference  between  regeneration  and  sanctifi- 
cation. Spiritual  food  will  not  impart  life  to  a  dead  soul, 
though  it  will  nourish  and  strengthen  one  already  quick- 
ened. New  life  is  due  to  the  direct  exercise  of  divine  efii- 
ciency,  but  growth  in  grace  results  from  spiritual  nourish- 
ment. In  regeneration  the  Spirit  works  immediately ;  in 
sanctification  he  works  through  means.  Hence  the  apostle 
says :  "  Desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that  ye  may 
grow  thereby."  Holiness  is  a  duty.  Without  it  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord.  Hence,  in  addition  to  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ  and  repentance  unto  life,  God  requireth  of  us  a  "dil- 
igent use  of  all  the  outward  means  whereby  Christ  communi- 
cateth  to  us  the  benefits  of  redemption."  These  outward 
means  are  God's  ordinances,  especially  the  word,  sacraments 
ftud  prayer, 


92  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

I.  The  Word. 
By  the  word  is  meant  the  Bible.  It  is  the  rule  of  duty. 
All  questions,  both  of  creed  and  conduct,  are  to  be  deter- 
mined by  it.  To  know  what  is  true  we  are  not  to  go  to 
church  councils,  creeds  or  catechisms,  but  to  the  Bible.  To 
know  what  is  right  we  are  not  to  consult  private  opinion  or 
public  sentiment,  but  the  Bible.  It  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  and  is  therefore  "  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  re- 
proof, for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  Do 
we  desire  to  learn  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly  ?  Then 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salva- 
tion. Are  we  in  heaviness  through  manifold  temptations? 
Then  let  us  consider  Him  who  endured  such  contradiction 
of  sinners  against  himself  Are  we  faint-hearted  ?  Let  us 
turn  to  the  promises.  Are  we  growing  cold  and  formal  in 
the  service  of  Christ?  Then  the  Epistles  of  Peter  should 
stir  us  up  by  putting  us  in  remembrance.  Have  we  to  do 
battle  against  the  enemy  of  souls  ?  Then  let  us  wield  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God.  The  Bible 
reflects  God's  glory  ;  and  beholding  in  it  as  in  a  glass  the 
glory  of  God,  we  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from 
glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  The 
word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful  and  sharper  than  any 
two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of 
spul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  dis- 
cerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart.  How  is 
the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  word  accounted  for  ?  There 
are  three  answers  to  this  question. 

1.  Some  say  that  the  influence  which  the  Bible  exerts  is 
only  the  natural  result  of  the  presentation  of  moral  truth  to 
the  mind. 

2.  Lutherans  say  that  there  is  an  inherent  virtue  in  the 
word  which,  if  not  resisted,  produces  blessed  results  in  those 
to  whom  it  is  presented.     Its  influence  is  not  due  to  the  nat- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  93 

ural  force  of  truth,  but  tq  the  Spirit  of  God  working  in  and 
with  it. 

3.  The  Reformed  doctrine  is  different  from  both  the  fore- 
going views.  The  first  view  is  not  correct,  inasmuch  as  the 
presentation  of  the  truth  to  the  mind  does  not  enable  a  man 
to  understand  the  truth,  nor  does  it  open  his  heart  to  the 
reception  of  it.  This  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  The 
second  view  is  not  correct,  because  it  denies  the  personal 
agency  of  the  Spirit  as  separate  and  distinct  from  the  word. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  that  the  word  sanctifies  by  be- 
ing made  eflEicacious  through  the  Spirit.  The  word  may  be 
presented  without  the  attending  influence  of  the  Spirit,  for 
it  acts  by  no  inherent  power,  and  the  Spirit  works  when  and 
where  he  pleases.  The  word  must  be  attended  by  the  eflS- 
cacious  influence  of  the  Spirit,  or  it  is  preached  in  vain. 
Hence  the  necessity  of  praying  for  the  aid  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  order  that  we  may  study  the  Scriptures  with 
profit.  Hence,  too,  the  need  of  praying  that  God  would 
give  his*  word  success,  and  that  his  Spirit  would  lead  us  into 
all  truth. 

II.  Sacraments. 

Our  Lord  has  enjoined  upon  his  followers  the  observance 
of  two  ordinances  through  which,  as  well  as  through  the 
word,  he  is  pleased  to  communicate  his  grace.  These  ordi- 
nances are  the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. *'  A  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance  instituted  by 
Christ,  wherein,  by  sensible  signs,  Christ  and  the  benefits  of 
the  new  covenant  are  represented,  sealed  and  applied  to  be- 
lievers,"* "  The  grace  which  is  exhibited  in  or  by  the 
sacraments  rightly  used  is  not  conferred  by  any  power  in 
them,  neither  doth  the  eflScacy  of  a  sacrament  depend  upon 
the  piety  or  intention  of  him  that  doth  administer  it,  but 
upon  the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  word  of  institution, 
■which  contains,  together  with  the  precept  authorizing  the 
*  Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  92. 


94  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

use  thereof,  a  promise  of  benefit  to  worthy  receivers."* 
These  statements  express  the  idea  of  the  sacraments  enter- 
tained by  the  Reformed  Churches.     They  are  opposed — 

1.  To  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  The  Chu/ch  of 
Rome  says  that  the  sacraments  contain  the  grace  they  sig- 
nify, and  convey  it  ex  opere  operato.  As  food  has  power  to 
support  life,  so  baptism  regenerates  and  the  eucharist  af- 
fords spiritual  nourishment  without  regard  to  the  faith  or 
want  of  faith  of  those  receiving  the  sacraments. 

2.  To  the  Lutheran  view.  Lutherans  deny  the  ex  opere 
operato  doctrine  as  taught  by  Romanists.  They  hold  that 
faith  is  necessary  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  but  they 
hold  that  when  received  in  faith  the  sacraments  convey 
grace  by  an  inherent  virtue,  just  as  they  maintain  that  the 
word  sanctifies  by  an  inherent  virtue.  The  doctrine  of  our 
Church  is  that  both  word  and  sacraments  are  made  effica- 
cious by  the  work  of  God's  Spirit,  and  not  by  any  inherent 
power  in  themselves. 

3.  To  the  Zwinglian  view.  According  to  this  viftw,  the 
sacraments  cannot  be  properly  called  means  of  grace.  They 
are  only  symbolical  modes  of  stating  Scripture  truth.  The 
doctrine  of  our  standards  is  that  the  sacraments  not  only 
represent,  but  that  they  seal  and  exhibit  or  apply  to  believers, 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption. 

In  studying  this  subject  we  are  to  guard  against  two  ex- 
tremes. First,  we  are  to  be  careful  not  to  undervalue  the 
sacraments  or  ignore  the  fact  that  they  are  channels  of 
grace ;  secondly,  we  are  to  be  careful  not  to  regard  them  a3 
channels  of  every  grace,  for  they  are  sanctifying,  but  not 
regenerating,  ordinances.f  Passing  from  these  remarks  on 
the  sacraments  in  general,  let  us  consider  .each  of  these  or- 
dinances separately. 

*  Confession  of  Faitl\  jap.  xxvii.,  ^  3. 

f  "The  substance  of  this  matter  may  be  embodied  in  these  two  po- 
Bitions:  1.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  ordinarily  employs  the  sacraments, 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  95 

1.  Baptism. — And  here  we  are  met  by  three  inquiries: 
1.  The  idea  of  baptism;  2.  The  subjects  of  baptism;  3. 
The  mode  of  baptism. 

1.  The  idea  of  baptism.  A  Hindoo,  let  us  suppose,  ap- 
plies to  the  missionary  for  baptism.  Shall  the  missionary 
take  the  ground  that  baptism  is  a  regenerating  ordinance, 
and  baptize  him  without  making  any  inquiry  respecting  his 
state  of  mind  ?  Or  shall  he  take  the  ground  that  baptism 
is  the  ordinance  in  which  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  is 
made,  and  satisfy  himself  that  the  person  applying  for  bap- 
tism is  a  Christian  ?  If  he  follows  New  Testament  prece- 
dent, he  will  adopt  the  latter  course.  The  case  supposed  is 
analogous  to  the  instances  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  this,  and  in  all  other  cases  of  adult  bap- 
tism, it  is  clear,  therefore,  that  baptism  presupposes  regen- 
eration, and  cannot  be  a  regenerating  agent.  If  baptism 
ever  regenerates,  it  nmst  be  in  the  case  of  infants.  But  we 
concede  freely  to  the  Baptist  denomination  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament does  not  give  a  single  unmistakable  instance  of  in- 
fant baptism.  Baptismal  regeneration  is  therefore  discounte- 
nanced by  every  instance  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
Its  only  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  doctrine  of  Scripture 
when  received  by  persons  duly  qualified  and  rightly  prepared,  as 
means  or  instruments  of  conveying  to  them  clearer  views  and  more 
lively  and  impressive  conceptions  of  what  he  has  done  and  revealed 
in  his  word  with  respect  to  the  provisions  and  arrangements  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  and  their  special  application  to  men  individually. 
And,  2.  That  the  Holy  Spirit,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples and  tendencies  of  our  constitution,  ordinarily  employs  the  sac- 
raments as  means  or  instruments  of  increasing  and  strengthening 
man's  faith  with  reference  to  all  its  appropriate  objects,  and  thereby 
of  imparting  to  them  in  greater  abundance,  all  the  spiritual  blessings 
which  are  connected  with  the  lively  and  vigorous  exercise  of  faith — 
that  is,  all  those  subordinate  blessings,  as  in  a  certain  sense  they  may 
be  called,  which  accompany  and  flow  from  justification  and  regenera- 
tion."— Cunningham's  "Keformers  and  Theology  of  the  Reforma- 
tion," p.  287. 


96  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

rests  on  a  few  isolated  texts  of  Scripture,  and  these  it  can 
be  shown  will  not  bear  the  interpretation  which  the  advo- 
cates of  Sacraiuentarianism  put  upon  them. 

One  of  these  passages  is  John  iii.  5 :  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God." 

But  it  is  not  clear  that  "  born  of  water "  refers  to  bap- 
tism ;  and  if  it  does,  it  is  not  clear  that "  kingdom  of  God" 
means  heaven.  Another  text  is  found  in  Titus  iii.  5 : 
*'  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  again 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  no  reference  to  baptism 
is  intended.  The  probable  meaning  is :  "  We  are  saved  by 
that  washing  which  is  regeneration,  namely,  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."* 

Baptism,  being  administered  to  adults  on  profession  of 
faith,  is  to  them  a  sign  and  seal  of  regeneration,  not  as 
effecting  it,  but  as  witnessing  that  it  has  been  already  effect- 
ed. Regeneration  and  baptism  are  in  this  way  closely  re- 
lated ideas,  and  this  will  explain  such  passages  as  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins ;" 
"  Bepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

2.  The  subjects  of  baptism.  The  heathen  just  referred  to 
would  be  treated  in  the  same  way  by  a  Presbyterian  or  a 
Baptist  missionary.  Neither  would  baptize  liitn  except  on 
a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And 
as  the  cases  of  adult  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  are 
analogous  to  the  one  supposed,  they  need  not  be  the  occa- 
sion of  any  difference  of  opinion  (save  as  to  the  mode  of 
baptism)  between  Presbyterians  and  Baptists.  It  is  agreed 
that  the  converts  to  Christianity  from  Judaism  or  heathen- 
ism are  to  be  baptized  on  profession  of  faith.  To  this  ex- 
*  Hodge,  "Systeiuatic  Theology,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  596. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  97 

tent  Presbyterians  are  firm  advocates  of  "believers'  bap- 
tism." But  suppose  that  the  heathen  above  referred  to  had 
children?  What  then?  Should  the  missionary  baptize 
them  also?  If  he  were  a  Presbyterian,  he  would;  if  ho 
were  a  Baptist,  he  would  not.  And  here  we  reach  the  real 
ditference  between  our  Baptist  brethren  and  ourselves.  The 
question  between  us  is  simply  whether  the  children  of  be- 
lievers are  entitled  to  baptism.  In  answering  this  question 
two  concessions  are  to  be  freely  made.  1.  That  the  New 
Testament  does  not  contain  one  clear  case  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 2.  That  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  does  not  rest 
on  a  positive  command  of  Christ,  but  is  arrived  at  inferen- 
tially.  Neither  of  these  concessions  affects  the  case.  It  is 
not  strange  that  the  New  Testament  makes  no  specific  men- 
tion of  infant  baptism.  Let  us  illustrate :  A  Presbyterian 
missionary  goes  to  a  heathen  land  to  preach  the  gospel. 
As  the  result  of  his  preaching  a  heathen  is  converted.  He 
is  baptized,  and  the  fact  is  reported.  But  in  reporting  the 
baptism  the  minister  only  wishes  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
this  heathen  has  made  a  profession  of  religion,  that  being 
the  important  thing.  If  the  convert  has  children,  they  are 
likewise  baptized,  and  he  may  or  may  not  refer  to  it.  If  he 
does  refer  to  it,  he  will  refer  to  it  as  a  subordinate  fact,  and 
say  that  the  children  were  baptized  or  the  household  was 
baptized.  Now,  the  cases  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
were  cases  like  the  one  supposed.  And  while  it  is  not 
strange  that  there  is  no  typical  case  of  infant  baptism,  like 
that  of  Cornelius,  it  is  more  than  likely  that  where  the 
sacred  writers  say  that  "he  and  all  his"  were  baptized 
they  are  recording  as  a  subordinate  fact  the  baptism  of  the 
convert's  children  as  well  as  of  the  convert  himself.  Nor  is  it 
a  valid  argument  against  infant  baptism  that  our  Lord  does 
not  command  children  to  be  baptized.  He  did  not  enjoin 
the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath. 
7 


98  SmiMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

We  have  not  space  enough  to  enter  into  an  argument  in 
defence  of  infant  baptism.  These,  however,  are  the  princi- 
ples which  govern  us  in  the  matter. 

(a)  The  Church  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Church  of 
the  New  are  one  and  the  same  Church. 

(b)  Children  of  believers  were  members  of  the  church 
under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  They  are  entitled 
to  membership,  therefore,  in  the  Christian  church,  unless  it 
can  be  shown  that  this  right  no  longer  exists.  The  dif- 
ference between  us  and  the  Baptists  is  a  question  con- 
cerning the  burden  of  proof.  We  aflfirm  the  doctrine  of 
infant  church  membership  because  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
it  is  contrary  to  New  Testament  teaching.  They  deny  the 
doctrine  of  infant  church  membership  because  it  cannot  be 
proved  by  direct  testimony  of  the  New  Testament. 

(c)  If  we  are  right  in  claiming  for  children  under  the 
New  Testament  the  privileges  which  they  enjoyed  un- 
der the  Old  until  it  is  proved  that  those  privileges  have 
been  revoked,  we  are  right  in  claiming  that  they  are  entitled 
to  baptism ;  for  if  they  are  entitled  to  membership,  they 
cannot  reasonably  be  denied  that  which  is  the  sign  of  mem- 
bership. The  view  we  have  taken  furnishes  a  natural  ex- 
planation of  those  passages  which  refer  to  the  baptism  of 
Lydia  and  her  household,  of  the  household  of  Stephanas,  of 
the  jailer  and  all  his.  It  is  possible  that  there  were  no  in- 
fants in  these  households,  but  the  probabilities  are  the  other 
w^ay ;  and  the  references  are  just  such  as  a  missionary  at  the 
present  day  would  make  if  he  were  reporting  the  conversion 
of  a  heathen  and  the  subsequent  baptism  of  himself  and 
his  family. 

3.  The  mode  of  baptism.  Baptism  is  a  washing  with 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 
How  much  water  is  used  and  how  it  is  applied  are  matters 
of  small  moment.     Baptism  may  be  performed  by  immer- 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  09 

sion,  affusion  or  sprinkling.  Baptists  claim  that  baptism 
means  immersion,  and  that  sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  For 
this  position,  however,  they  have  no  authority. 

(a)  The  use  of  the  words  "  bapto  "  and  "  baptizo  "  does 
not  warrant  it.  These  words  are  used  where  Nebuchadnez- 
zar is  said  to  have  been  "  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven," 
where  the  washing  of  the  hands,  of  pots  and  cups  and 
tables  (couches)  is  spoken  of,  and  in  Mark  vii.  4,  where 
we  read  :  "  And  when  they  come  from  market,  except  they 
wash,  they  eat  not." 

(6)  The  use  of  the  Greek  prepositions  translated  "in," 
"  into,"  "  out  of,"  does  not  sustain  the  Baptist  position. 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down,  both  of  them,  "  into  "  the 
water.  But  this  does  not  necessarily  mean  more  than  that 
they  went  down  to  the  stream  and  stood  beside  it.  If  it 
necessarily  conveys  the  idea  of  immersion,  we  must  hold 
that  Philip  was  immersed  too,  for  they  both  went  down 
"into"  the  water. 

(c)  The  cases  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament 
do  not  sustain  the  Baptist  position.  Three  thousand  con- 
verts were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Considering 
the  short  time  in  which  this  was  done,  and  the  scarcity  of 
water  in  Jerusalem,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  they  were 
immersed.  The  account  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  sug- 
gests the  idea  that  water  was  brought  for  the  purpose. 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water  ?"  The  Philippian  jailer  vvas 
baptized  at  midnight  and  in  prison.  It  is  highly  improb- 
able that  he  was  immersed. 

(d)  The  Baptist  position  is  not  supported  by  the  remain- 
ing references  to  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Isra- 
elites were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  but  they  were  not  im- 
mersed. We  receive  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but 
we  are  not  immersed  in  the  Spirit.  He  is  poured  out  upon 
us. 

2,  The  Lord's  Supper. — There  are  four  leading,  views 


100  .      SUM3IARY   OF  DOCTRINE. 

in   respect   to  this   sacrament,    the    Roman   Catholic,    the 
Lutheran,  the  Zwinglian  and  the  Reformed. 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches  that  by  the  act 
of  the  officiating  priest  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine  in 
the  eucharist — or,  as  they  call  it,  the  mass — are  chajiged  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
sul)stantiation.  The  scriptural  arguments  in  support  of  this 
are  John  vi.  53:  "Then  said  Jesus  unto  them,  Verily,  verily 
I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you ;"  and  1  Cor.  xi. 
24  :  "  This  is  my  body.'"*"  The  mass  is  both  a  sacrament  and 
a  sacrifice.  As  a  sacrament  it  imparts  spiritual  nourish- 
ment  ex  opere  operato.  But  as  a  sacrifice  it  is  a  satisfaction 
for  sin.  Romanism  is  a  huge,  though  consistent  (and  this 
is  more  than  can  be  said  of  high  Anglicanism),  perversion 
of  Bible  truth.  It  makes  the  minister  a  priest,  the  memo- 
rial meal  a  sacrifice ;  and  instead  of  teaching  that  Christ  was 
once  (once  for  all)  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  it  makes 
the  satisfaction  for  sin  depend  on  the  repetition  of  that 
sacrifice  in  the  mass. 

2.  The  Lutherans  deny  that  the  substance  of  the  ele- 
ments is  changed,  but  they  believe  in  the  corporeal  pres- 
ence of  Christ  in,  under  and  with  the  elements.  This  is 
consubstantiation.  They  hold  that  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
communicant  is  necessary  in  order  that  grace  may  be  re- 
ceived, but  they  hold,  likewise,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  bap- 
tism, the  eucharist  has  an  inherent  virtue. 

3.  The  Zwinglian  view  regards  the  Lord's  Supper  sim- 
ply as  symbolical,  and  as  a  means  of  grace  only  as  it  is 
another  mode  of  presenting  truth  to  the  mind. 

4.  The  Reformed  doctrine  is  opposed, to  all  the  forego- 
ing. It  is  opposed  to  the  Zwinglian  view,  inasmuch  as  it 
teaches  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  channel  of  grace.  It  is 
opposed   to  the  Lutheran,  inasmuch  as  it  teaches  that  thia 

*  See  the  commentaries  on  these  verses. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  101 

grace  is  conveyed  not  by  any  inherent  virtue  in  the  ordi- 
nance, but  only  as  the  Holy  Ghost  uses  it  for  our  sanctifi- 
cation ;  and  of  course  it  is  still  more  opposed  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  view. 

Our  Shorter  Catechism  says  :  "  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
sacrament,  wherein,  by  giving  and  receiving  bread  and 
wine  according  to  Christ's  appointment,  his  death  is  showed 
forth,  and  the  worthy  receivers  are,  not  after  a  corporal  and 
carnal  manner,  but  by  faith,  made  partakers  of  his  body 
and  blood,  with  ail  his  benefits  to  their  spiritual  nourish- 
ment and  growth  in  grace."  * 

Looking  at  this  ordinance  as  it  is  expounded  in  the  sym- 
bols of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  especially  of  our  own,  we 
may  distinguish  four  leading  ideas. 

(a)  The  memorial  idea.  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me."  The  love  which  brought  salvation  and  the  way  by 
which  salvation  came  are  to  be  kept  fresh  in  our  minds  by 
the  periodic  observance  of  the  ordinance  which  commemo- 
rates Christ's  death. 

(b)  The  symbolical  idea.  As  baptism  teaches  by  sym- 
bol the  doctrine  of  depravity  and  the  necessity  of  regener- 
ation, so  the  impressive  ordinance  of  the  Supper  speaks  to 
us  of  guilt  and  of  the  atonement.  A  Socinian  theology  has 
no  adequate  explanation  of  the  eucharist. 

(c)  The  social  idea.  This  service  is  a  memorial  meal. 
It  is  the  "  Lord's  table "  which  is  spread,  the  "  Lord's 
Supper  "  of  which  we  partake.  It  is  a  communion  of  Chris- 
tians with  their  Lord  and  with  one  another.  The  followers 
of  Christ  are  brethren,  and  he  is  the  Elder  Brother  of  them 
all. 

(c?)  The  sacramental  idea.     There  is  no  word  which  ex- 
actly expresses  the  thought  which  we  wish  to  express  under 
this  head.    High  Churchmen  speak  of  tlie  sacramental  prin- 
ciple, but  by  it  they  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  sign 
*  Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  96. 


102  SV^IMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

and  the  thing  signified  always  accompany  each  other.  We 
use  the  word  sacramental  in  this  connection  because  it 
serves  ])etter  than  any  other  to  express  the  thought  that 
this  ordinance,  besides  being  a  memorial  service  and  sym- 
bolical of  precious  truth,  is  really  a  means  of  grace  to  those 
who  receive  it  in  faith,  that  in  a  real,  though  not  in  a  bod- 
ily sense,  Christ  is  present,  and  that  in  a  spiritual,  though 
not  in  a  corporal  manner,  believers  do  feed  upon  him  to 
their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  only  a  memo- 
rial service  or  that  it  is  merely  a  symbolical  ordinance. 
The  language  used  respecting  it  in  the  New  Testament  for- 
bids our  taking  such  a  low  view  of  it.  Rejecting  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  and  Lutheran  interpretations  put  upon  the 
words  of  our  Lord,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  he  did  say, 
"  This  is  my  body,"  "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my 
blood."  Remember,  too,  that  Paul  uses  this  strong  lan- 
guage in  regard  to  the  eucharist:  "Wherefore  whosoever 
shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  un- 
worthily shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord.  But  let  him  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of 
that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  (judg- 
ment) to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  1  Cor. 
xi.  27-29.  We  read  also,  1  Cor.  x.  16,  "The  cup  of  bless- 
ing which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ?  The  bread  which  he  brake,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
nion of  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  *  In  this  ordinance  we  not 
only  remember  Christ — we  receive  him.f 

*  For  remarks  on  these  passages,  see  Bannerman,  "  The  Church  of 
(Jhrist,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  13S. 

f  "  Christ  is  really  present  to  his  people  in  this  sacrament,  not 
liodily,  but  in  spirit,  not  in  the  sense  of  local  nearness,  but  of  eflBca- 
cious  operation.  They  receive  him  not  with  the  mouth,  but  by 
faith  ;  they  receive  his  flesh  and  blood,  not  a;;  flesh,  not  as  material 
particles,  not  as  human  life,  not  the  supernatural  influence  of  hifi 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  10^ 

The  Lord's  table  is  spread  for  the  Lord's  people.  None 
but  Christians  should  come  to  it,  and  none  who  are  Christ's 
should  be  kept  from  it.  Hence,  in  admitting  persons  to 
sealing  ordinances,  it  is  not  right  to  require  them  to  sub- 
scribe'to  an  elaborate  creed,  or  to  exact  from  them  more 
than  a  credible  profession  of  faith.*  Men  cannot  read  the 
heart,  and  Christ  does  not  recognize  a  vicarious  conscience. 

Our  Directory  for  Worship  says  :t  "  Children  born  within 
the  pale  of  the  visible  Church,  and  dedicated  to  God  in 
baptism,  are  under  the  inspection  and  government  of  the 
Church,  and  are  to  be  taught  to  read  and  repeat  the  cate- 
chism, the  apostles'  creed  and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  They 
are  to  be  taught  to  pray,  to  abhor  sin,  to  fear  God  and  to 
obey  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  when  they  come  to  years 
of  discretion,  if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and 
steady  and  have  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they 
ought  to  be  informed  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege  to 
come  to  the  Lord's  Supper." 

glorified  body  in  heaven,  but  his  body  as  broken  and  his  blood  as 
shed.  The  union  thus  signified  and  effected  is  not  a  corporeal  union, 
not  a  mixture  of  substances,  but  a  spiritual  and  mystical  union  due 
to  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  efficacy  of  this  sacrament 
as  a  means  of  grace  is  not  in  the  sign,  nor  in  the  service,  nor  m  the 
minister,  nor  in  the  word,  but  in  the  attending  influence  of  the  Holy 
Q host."— Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii.,  p.  650. 

*  "The  principle  (of  communion),  as  it  is  notorious  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  has  always  held  it,  does  not  constitute  the  pastor,  eld- 
ers or  congregation  judges  of  the  actual  conversion  of  the  applicant, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  lays  much  responsibility  on  the  applicant  him- 
self. The  minister  and  kirk-session  must  be  satisfied  as  to  his  com- 
petent knowledge,  credible  profession  and  consistent  walk.  They 
must  determine  negatively  that  there  is  no  reason  for  pronouncing 
him  not  to  be  a  Christian,  but  they  do  not  undertake  the  responsibil- 
ity of  positively  judging  of  his  conversion."— Candlish,  quoted  by 
Hodge  in  "  Outlines  of  Theology,"  p.  516. 

t  Chap,  ix.,  I  1. 


104  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

III.  Prayer. 

God  is  our  Father.  He  loves  us ;  he  is  able  aud  williug 
to  help  us.  We  have  access  to  him,  and  he  has  promised  to 
hear  us  wheu  we  come  to  him  in  the  name  of  Christ.  We 
are  invited  to  come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of  grace.  We 
are  assured  that  the  Spirit  maketh  intercession  in  us,  and 
that  Christ  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us.  It  is 
natural,  then,  that  the  child  of  God  should  seek  commu- 
nion with  his  Father  in  heaven.  Saved  by  his  grace,  kept 
by  his  power,  led  by  his  Spirit,  it  would  be  strange  if  the 
Christian  did  not  rejoice  in  the  privilege  of  going  to  God 
with  the  language  of  adoration,  thanksgiving,  confession 
and  petition  on  his  lips. 

And  as  prayer  is  the  natural  expression  of  religious  feel- 
ing, so  we  might  naturally  expect  that  the  religious  life 
would  be  promoted  by  a  prayerful  habit.  The  face  of  Mo- 
ses shone  when  he  came  down  from  the  mount  where  he 
had  talked  with  God.  Nothing  will  impart  radiance  and 
beauty  to  Christian  character  like  communion  with  God. 
He  who  would  be  God-like  must  walk  with  God  as  Enoch 
did.  He  who  would  resist  the  temptations  of  the  world  must 
descend  to  the  daily  duties  of  life  from  the  mountain-top  of 
prayer. 

But  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  regard  prayer  as  only 
a  means  of  heightening  our  religious  feelings  and  convic- 
tions, or  to  value  it  only  for  its  reflex  influence  upon  our- 
selves. One  element  in  prayer  is  petition.  God's  blessings 
are  given  in  answer  to  prayer.  God  says,  "  I  will  be  in- 
quired of  by  the  house  of  Israel."  Our  Saviour  says, 
*'  Ask,"  "  seek,"  "  knock."  He  tells  us  that  earthly  parents 
are  not  so  willing  to  give  good  gifts  unto  their  children  as 
God  is  to  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him.  Paul 
says,  "  Pray  without  ceasing."  "  In  everything  by  prayer 
and  thanksgiving  let  your  requests  be  made  known  unto 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  105 

God."  We  cannot  complain  if  we  lack  the  blessings  which 
we  have  never  craved.  The  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  says,  "  Prayer,  with  thanksgiving,  being  one  special 
part  of  religious  worship,  is  by  God  required  of  all  men  ; 
and  that  it  may  be  accepted,  it  is  to  be  made  in  the  name 
of  the  Son,  by  the  help  of  the  Spirit,  according  to  his  will, 
with  understanding,  reverence,  humility,  fervency,  faith, 
love  and  perseverance."* 

The  subject  of  prayer  presents  difficulties  to  some  minds. 

1.  It  is  asked  how  the  unqualified  promise  of  our  Saviour, 
"  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  in  my  name  I  will  do  it,"  is  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  fact  that  so  many  prayers  are  not  an- 
swered, and  with  the  additional  fact  that,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  all  prayers  cannot  be  answered,  as,  for  instance,  when  on 
the  eve  of  battle  both  armies  pray  for  victory.  In  replying 
to  this  question  we  must  inquire  who  are  meant  by  "  ye  " 
in  the  passage  referred  to.  Does  Christ  pledge  himself  in 
this  promise  to  answer  every  request  which  may  be  made, 
without  regard  to  the  persons  who  make  it  or  the  spirit  in 
which  it  is  preferred?  Surely  not.  The  promise  is  to  hia 
disciples,  and  must  be  limited  in  its  application  to  Chris- 
tians. But  do  Christians  desire  that  their  requests  should 
be  unconditionally  granted  ?  Does  a  Christian  so  far  forget 
himself  as  to  presume  to  know  better  than  God  what  he 
needs  ?  Surely  not.  Then  the  words  of  our  Saviour  are 
to  be  explained  by  the  words  of  John  :  "  This  is  the  confi- 
dence that  we  have  in  him,  that  if  we  ask  anything  accord- 
ing to  his  will,  he  heareth  us."  1  John  v.  14.  It  is  a  great 
blessing  that  God  does  not  answer  all  our  prayers. 

2.  It  is  said  that  since  the  physical  world  is  under  the 
control  of  law  it  is  irrational  to  pray  for  rain  in  dry 
weather,  for  a  prosperous  voyage  or  for  recovery  from  sick- 
ness. To  this  we  reply  that  a  theory  which  makes  God 
the  slave  of  his  own  laws,  which  represents  him  as  leaving 
*  Cap.  xxi.,  I  3. 


106  SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

the  universe  under  the  exclusive  control  of  physical  causes, 
is  unscriptural.  We  believe  that  "  God's  works  of  provi- 
dence are  his  most  iioly,  wise  and  powerful  preserving  and 
governing  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  actions."  Believing 
this,  we  believe  that  the  area  of  prayer  is  as  wide  as  that  of 
our  wants.  Nor  are  we  doubtful  respecting  the  efficacy  of 
prayer  because  we  do  not  understand  how  it  is  answered. 
Whether  God  answers  prayer  by  a  direct  exercise  of  divine 
power,  or  whether  he  does  so  by  means  of  second  causes,  it 
matters  not.*  "  Prayer  and  the  answer  of  prayer  are  simply 
the  preferring  of  a  request  upon  one  side  and  the  compli- 
ance with  that  request  upon  the  other.  Man  applies ;  God 
complies.  Man  asks  a  favor ;  God  bestows  it."  f  This  is 
enough. 

3.  It  is  urged  again  that  if  God  has  foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass,  prayer  is  unnecessary,  since  it  cannot  change 
his  purpose.  But  God's  purpose  is  all-comprehensive.  He 
foreordains  the  prayer  as  well  as  the  answer  to  the  prayer. 
He  has  no  more  decreed  the  one  than  the  other. 

*  "I  believe  that  God  commonly  answers  prayer  by  natural  means 
appointed  for  this  purpose  from  the  very  beginning,  when  he  gave 
to  mind  and  matter  tlieir  laws,  and  arranged  the  objects  with  these 
laws  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  wise  and  beneficent  ends,  for  the 
encouragement  of  virtue  and  the  discouragement  of  vice,  and  among 
others  to  provide  an  answer  to  the  acceptable  petitions  of  his  people. 
God,  in  answer  to  prayer,  may  restore  the  patient  by  an  original 
strength  of  constitution  or  by  the  well-timed  application  of  a  remedy. 
The  believer  is  in  need  of  a  blessing,  and  he  asks  it;  and  he  finds 
that  the  God  who  created  the  need  and  prompted  the  prayer  lias  pro- 
vided the  means  of  granting  what  he  needs." — Dr.  McCosh  in  Con- 
temporary Review  for  October,  1872. 

•)  Chalmers,  quoted  by  Dr.  Hodge  in  **  Systematic  Theology,"  vol. 
Lii.,  p.  604 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  107 


THE  FUTURE  STATE. 

The  question  of  destiny  is  now  to  be  considered.  It  is 
appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  and  after  death— what? 
Before  an  answer  is  given  to  this  question,  notice  must  be 
taken  of  certain  great  events  which  are  predicted  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  occurrence  of  which  will  bring  about  the  final 
consummation.  These  are,  1.  The  second  advent ;  2.  The 
resurrection  ;  3.  The  judgment. 

1.  The  Second  Advent.— The  Church  as  Christ's  army 
is  to  push  its  conquests  until  Jesus  is  owned  the  world  over 
as  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords ;  then  the  Lord  will 
come.  That  he  is  to  come  in  person  is  abundantly  taught 
in  Scripture.  He  left  the  world  with  the  promise  that  he 
would  return:  "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death,  till  he  come."  The 
disciples  who  watched  his  ascension  heard  these  words  from 
the  angels:  "Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye  gazing  up 
into  heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  from  you 
into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him 
go  into  heaven."  The  writings  of  Paul  abound  in  allusions 
to  "  the  appearing  of  our  Lord,"  ''that  day,"  "his  coming," 
"  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ ;"  and  the  Apocalypse  closes  with 
the  prayer  which  is  so  often  on  Christian  lips :  "  Even  so, 
come,  Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly." 

2.  The  Resurrection.— The  Scriptures  clearly  teach 
that  there  is  to  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked,  and  they  associate  this  event  with  the  sec- 
ond coming  of  Christ :  "  Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to* everlasting  life,  and 
some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  Dan.  xii.  2. 
"  Marvel  not  at  this  ;  for  the  hour  is  coming  in  the  which 
all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall 


108  SUiUMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection 
of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection 
of  damnation.  '  John  v.  28,  29.  "  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and 
great,  stand  before  God  :  and  the  books  were  opened,  and 
another  book  was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life;  and  the 
dead  were  judged  out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in 
the  book,  according  to  their  works.  And  the  sea  gave  up 
the  dead  which  were  in  it,  and  death  and  hell  gave  up  the 
dead  which  were  in  them."  Rev.  xx.  12,  13.  "  We  who  are 
alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not 
prevent  [precede]  them  which  are  asleep.  For  the  Lord 
himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the 
voice  of  the  archangel  and  with  the  trump  of  God;  and  the 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then  we  who  are  alive  and 
remain  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds 
to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with 
the  Lord."  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  17. 

3.  The  Judgment. — Besides  the  doctrines  of  the  second 
advent  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  there  is  to  be  a  final  judgment,  and  there  are  good 
reasons  for  believing  that  these  three  events  are  to  be  contem- 
poraneous. The  following  are  among  the  leading  passages 
which  refer  to  this  subject :  "  For  he  hath  appointed  a  day 
in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that 
man  whom  he  hath  ordained."  Acts  xvii.  31.  "  We  must 
all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  that  every 
one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."  2  Cor.  v.  10. 
"  The  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
with  his  angels  :  and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man  ac- 
cording to  his  works."  Matt.  xvi.  27.  "  When  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with 
him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory;  and 
before  liiin  shall  be  gathered  all  nations;  and  he  shall 
separate  them  one  from  another  as  a  shepherd  divideth  the 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  109 

sheep  from  the  goats ;  and  he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  the  right 
hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left,"  etc.  Matt.  xxv.  31-o3. 
"Then  Cometh  the  end."  "The  heavens  shall  pass  away 
with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  me  t  with  ervent 
heat;  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are  therem  shall  be 

burned  up."  ,  ,  i  ^ 

We  do  not  know  how  near  or  how  remote  the  end  may  be. 
We  do  know,  however,  that  when  Christ  comes  those  who 
are  alive  shall  be  changed  and  all  who  are  n  the.r  graves 
shall  come  forth ;  and  we  know,  moreover,  that  both  quick 
and  dead  are  to  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  ot  Cl>r.st 

In  considering  the  subject  treated  in  this  lesson  we  shall 
speak  first  of  the  state  of  the  soul  betwee.i  death  and  the 
judgn>ent,  and,  second,  of  its  condition  after  the  ju.lgment. 

I.  Between  Death  and  the  Judgment. 
The  doctrine  of  our  Church  on  the  condition  of  men  be- 
tween death  and  the  resurrection  is  thus  expressed  :u  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith:*  "The   bod.es  o,   men 
after  death   return   to  dust  and  see  corruption,  bi,t  then- 
souls  (which  neither  die  nor  sleep),  having  an  immortal  sub- 
sistence, immediately  return  to  God  who  gave  them.     The 
souls  of  the  righteous,  being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness 
are  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behol.l 
the  face  of  God  in  ligbt  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full  re- 
demption of  their  bodies;  and  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are 
cast  into  hell,   where  they  remain   in  torments  and   utter 
darkness,  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day      Be- 
sides these  two  places  for  souls  separated  from  their  bodie  , 
the  Scripture  acknowledgeth  none."     Tins  view  is  opposed 
1    To  the  doctrine  of  the  "sleep  of  the  soul;     2._  To  that 
of  "Hades;"  3.  To  the  doctrine  of  "purgatory.       l.et  us 

"tTHE^ 't^?o.  the  Sot.E.-Archbishop  Whately  has 
•*  Cap  xxxii.,  ^  1. 


no  smniABY  of  doctrine. 

given  the  weight  of  his  infliieuce  to  the  revolting  idea  that 
tlie  soul  falls  into  a  state  of  unconsciousness  at  death,  and 
remains  in  this  condition  until  the  resurrection.  It  is  true 
that  the  Bible  does  speak  of  death  as  a  sleep  and  of  Chris- 
tians as  those  "  who  sleep  in  Jesus  ;"  and  were  there  nothing 
positive  on  the  subject  in  the  Scriptures,  we  might  think, 
perhaps,  that  the  reference  is  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the 
body.  But  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  those  who  ac- 
knowledge the  authority  of  the  Bible  can  entertain  this 
opinion.  The  dying  Stephen  saw  the  heavens  opened  and 
Jesus  standing  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  His  last  words 
were :  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."  Jesus  said  to  the 
penitent  thief:  "  To-day shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." 
Paul  desired  to  "  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  far 
better."  To  depart  and  remain  unconscious  for  two  thou- 
sand years  would  not  have  been  far  better.  Christians 
have  died  in  every  age  of  the  Church,  and  are  dying  every 
day,  in  the  confident  expectation  of  entering  heaven  and  of 
seeing  Jesus.  We  shall  need  more  evidence  than  Whately 
has  furnished  to  assure  us  that  they  have  all  been  de- 
ceived.* 

2.  Hades. — This  doctrine  has  always  had  its  supporters, 
and  it  has  many  advocates  at  the  present  day.      Briefly 

*  "Here,  for  example,  is  a  pas-age  fioiii  David  Brainerd's  last 
days  :  '  Lord's  day,  September  27,  1747. — I  was  born  on  a  Sabbath 
day,  and  I  liave  a  reason  to  tliink  I  was  new  born  on  a  Sabbath  day ; 
and  I  hope  I  shall  die  on  this  Sabbath  day.'  '  I  am  almost  in  eternity  ; 
I  long  to  be  there.'  '  I  long  to  be  in  heaven,  praising  and  glorifying 
God  with  the  holy  angels.'  October  6  he  lay  as  if  he  were  dying. 
lie  was  heard  to  utter  in  broken  whispers  such  expressions  as  ihese : 
'He  will  come;  he  will  not  tarry;  I  shall  soon  be  in  glory;  I  shall 
Boon  glorify  God  with  the  angels.'  But  Archbishop  Whately  thinks 
that  for  a  hundred  and  thirteen  years  Brainerd  has  been  utterly  un- 
conscious,  and  that  all  these  anticipations  are  not  to  be  fulfilled  for 
perhaps  several  thousand  years." — Adams'  "  Evenings  with  the 
Doctrines,"  p.  301. 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  HI 

stated,  it  is  that  there  is  a  place  intermediate  between 
heaven  and  hell  which  is  the  abode  of  the  dead  during  the 
period  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  The  blessed 
dead  go  to  Paradise,  where  they  are  in  a  state  of  happiness, 
though  it  is  far  inferior  to  that  which  is  in  store  for  them  in 
heaven.  The  impenitent  dead  are  in  another  region  of 
Hades,  where  they  await  in  misery  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day  and  the  infliction  of  the  punishment  of  hell. 

On  this  it  is  enough  to  remark  that  the  foregoing  doctrine 
is  in  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  our  standards  in  so  far 
as  it  affirms  that  the  righteous  will  not  experience  the  high- 
est blessedness  until  the  resurrection.  But  it  is  at  variance 
with  them  in  affirming  that  there  is  a  middle  state  or  place 
which  is  the  abode  of  departed  spirits  between  death  and 
the  resurrection.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  this  middle 
state  or  place  of  abode.  Christ  we  know  is  in  heaven,  and 
those  who  die  in  Christ  are  with  him. 

3.  Purgatory.— The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Kome 
respecting  the  future  state  is  embraced  in  its  teachings  re- 
specting heaven,  hell  and  purgatory.  Heaven  is  the  place 
of  highest  blessedness,  and  is  the  abode  of  three  classes  of 
persons :  first,  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  who  were  de- 
tained in  Hades  as  spirits  in  prison  until  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  when  they  were  led  out  in  triumph  ;  second,  of  the 
few  who  attain  perfection  in  this  life;  third,  of  those  Chris- 
tians who  die  without  being  perfect,  and  who  are  required 
to  make  satisfaction  for  their  sins  and  to  be  purified  by  en- 
during the  pains  of  purgatory.  Hell  is  the  place  of  end- 
less torment,  and  is  the  abode  of  all  heretics  and  of  those 
who  die  in  mortal  sin.  The  doctrine  of  purgatory  may  be 
stated  as  follows  :  The  atonement  of  Christ  only  delivers  men 
from  eternal  punishment.  Temporal  punishments,  and  espe- 
cially the  pains  of  purgatory  in  the  next  world,  still  remain 
to  be  endured  as  satisfaction  for  sin.  The  Church  of  Rome 
has  always  claimed  the  right  of  regulating  the  kind  and  de- 


112  SUM^^ARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

gree  of  this  punishment,  and  she  has  done  this  in  three  ways : 
(a)  By  indulgences.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
that  the  *'  temporal  pain,  owing  to  the  justice  of  God,  either 
before  or  after  death,  .  .  .  may  be  remitted  by  an  application 
of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints,  out  of  the  trea- 
sury of  the  Church,  the  dispensation  of  which  treasure  is 
given  to  the  bishops."  A  man  might  take  his  choice  of  do- 
ing penance  or  buying  an  indulgence.  (6)  By  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance.  Mortal  sins,  if  not  forgiven,  render  men 
liable  to  the  pains  of  hell.  To  be  forgiven  they  must  be 
confessed  to  a  priest.  He  then  absolves  from  the  penalty  of 
eternal  death,  and  prescribes  the  penance  which  must  be 
performed  as  a  temporal  satisfaction,  (c)  By  the  mass. 
This  is  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  avails  for  those  for  whom 
it  is  intended  by  the  officiating  priest,  whether  they  be  on 
earth  or  in  purgatory.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  this  doctrine 
places  the  destinies  of  men  in  the  hands  of  the  Romish 
priesthood  ;  and  it  can  readily  be  inferred  that  it  is  a  source 
of  great  power  and  emolument.  But  it  is  as  false  as  it  is 
pernicious. 

(a.)  There  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  Bible  which  lends  it  the 
least  support.  It  is  true  that  our  Lord  said  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  either  in  this  world  or 
in  the  world  to  come.  He  did  not  mean,  however,  that  some 
sins  may  be  forgiven  in  the  next  world,  but  only  that  this 
sin  shall  never  be  forgiven.  The  Scriptures  teach  that 
nothing  that  defileth  shall  enter  heaven,  and  it  is  not  claimed 
that  men  reach  a  state  of  sinless  perfection  in  this  life.  But 
these  facts  do  not  prove  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  nor  are 
they  enough  to  show  that  the  Christian  Ccuiies  the  infirmi- 
ties of  his  sinful  nature  with  him  into  the  next  world ;  we 
reach  a  different  conclusion  from  these  facts.  For  since  it 
is  true  that  men  do  not  attain  to  sinless  perfection  in  this 
life,  and  that  there  is  nothing  sinful  in  heaven,  and  that 
Christians  go  to  heaven  when  they  die,  we  conclude  that  the 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  113 

"souls of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holi- 
ness." 

(6.)  The  doctrine  is  based  on  a  false  assumption.  Those 
who  maintain  it  assume  that  Christ  has  not  made  a  complete 
satisfaction  for  sin.  Hence  there  is  great  similarity  between 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory  and  the  creed  of  a  certain  class 
of  Universalists.  The  latter  reject  the  atonement,  and  say 
that  God  always  punishes  men  for  their  sins.  Men  who  lead 
wicked  lives,  they  say,  must  expect  to  be  miserable  in  the 
next  world.  But  the  end  of  punishment  is  the  good  of  the 
offender,  and  the  result  of  it  will  be  universal  restoration  to 
holiness  and  heaven.  What  the  Universalists  of  this  class 
believe  respecting  all  men  the  Roman  Catholics  believe  re- 
specting all  who  go  to  purgatory.  The  answer  to  both  is 
the  same.  We  cannot  make  satisfaction  for  own  sins,  and 
we  need  not,  for  Christ  has  borne  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree. 

(c.)  The  doctrine  of  purgatory  contradicts  the  word  of 
God.  The  Bible  says  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  the 
Christian,  that  he  hath  eternal  life,  that  when  he  dies  he  is 
blessed,  and  that  for  him  to  depart  is  to  be  with  Christ. 

II.  After  the  Judgment. 
The  statements  of  Scripture  in  respect  to  the  judgment 
are  very  explicit.  Thus,  we  read,  "  The  angels  which  kept 
not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath 
reserved  in  everlasting  chains  under  darkness  unto  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day."  Jude  6.  "  Then  shall  the  King 
Bay  unto  them  on  his  right  hand.  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  .  .  .  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto 
them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  ev- 
erlasting fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  .  .  . 
And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the   righteous   into  life  eternal "  Matt.  xxiv.  34-46.    In 


114  SU3IMARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

these  passages  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  hell  and  heaven  is 
unfolded — to  wit :  that  the  wicked  shall  share  the  fate  of 
the  devil  and  the  fallen  angels  and  be  the  subjects  of  eter- 
nal suffering,  and  that  the  righteous  shall  be  welcomed  into 
the  enjoyment  of  everlasting  happiness.  Let  us  state  the 
doctrine  more  fully. 

1.  Hell. — The  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the  belief  of 
the  Christian  Church  is  that  the  impenitent  are  punished  in 
the  next  world,  that  the  punishment  is  everlasting,  and  that 
it  consists  in  pain.  This  doctrine  is  opposed  (a)  by  the 
Universal ists,  properly  so  called,  who  deny  that  any  punish- 
ment awaits  men  in  the  next  world ;  (6)  by  the  Restoration- 
ists,  who  admit  the  fact  of  future  punishment,  but  deny  that 
it  is  everlasting;  (c)  by  the  Annihilationists,  who  agree 
with  the  orthodox  view  in  respect  to  the  fact  and  the  dura- 
tion of  future  punishment,  but  deny  that  it  consists  in  pos- 
itive suffering  or  pain. 

(a.)  The  Universalists.  The  Bible  says  that  God  is  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish,  and  that  he  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  especially  of  those  who  believe.  It  says,  too,  that 
Christ  "  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  and  that  he  died 
"  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved."  We  cannot 
discuss  the  meaning  of  these  and  similar  passages  which 
are  such  favorites  with  the  Universalists,  but  we  know  that 
they  do  not  teach  that  all  men  go  to  heaven,  for  the  Bible 
distinctly  asserts  that  some  do  go  to  hell.  "  These  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  punishment ;"  "  The  Lord  Jesus 
shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in 
flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  who  know  not  God." 
To  say,  as  Ballou  says,  that  the  punishment  spoken  of  in 
the  Bible  refers  exclusively  to  sufferings  endured  in  this 
life  is  simply  absurd.  Better  renounce  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  at  once  than  trifle  in  this  way  with  its  most  solemn 
facts. 

(6.)  The  Restorationists.    A  great   many,  probably  the 


SUMMARY  OF  DOCTRINE.  115 

greater  number,  of  those  who  belong  to  the  XJniversalist  de- 
nomination in  this  country  admit  that  there  is  a  punish- 
ment in  store  for  the  wicked  in  the  next  world,  but  they 
deny  that  it  is  eternal.  They  support  their  position  by 
saying  that  God  is  too  benevolent  to  allow  his  creatures  to 
suffer  eternally ;  that  it  would  be  derogatory  to  God's  maj- 
esty for  evil  to  have  a  place  in  his  universe  through  all  eter- 
nity ;  that  punishment  is  for  the  good  of  the  offender  and 
must  result  in  the  sinner's  restoration  ;  and,  finally,  that  the 
word  aionios  does  not  mean  everlasting  but  only  a  limited 
period.  To  which  it  is  enough  to  reply  that  we  are  not 
competent  to  say  what  God  may  or  may  not  do ;  that  there  is 
no  argument  against  the  continuance  of  evil  in  the  world 
which  would  not  apply  as  well  to  its  introduction  and  to  its 
present  existence ;  that  the  Bible  does  not  intimate  that  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked  is  a  remedial  measure ;  and  that 
if  the  words  used  to  express  the  duration  of  punishment  do 
not  teach  that  it  is  eternal  it  is  difiicult  to  tell  how  the  idea 
of  eternity  could  have  been  expressed.  The  same  word  is 
used  to  express  the  duration  of  punishment  which,  in  a  co- 
ordinate clause  of  the  same  verse,  is  used  to  express  the  du- 
ration of  happiness.  "  We  must  either  admit  the  endless 
misery  of  hell  or  give  up  the  endless  happiness  of  heaven." 
(c.)  The  Annihilationists.  The  argument  mainly  em- 
ployed by  this  class  of  men  is  based  on  the  alleged  meaning 
of  the  words  "  life  "  and  "death."  Put  into  syllogistic  form, 
it  comes  to  this:  Life  always  and  only  means  existence; 
death,  non-existence.  But  the  punishment  of  sin  is  death  ; 
therefore  the  punishment  of  sin  is  non-existence,  or  extinc- 
tion of  being.  It  must  be  admitted  that  if  the  word  "  death  " 
is  correctly  defined  in  this  argument  it  overthrows  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  punishment,  but  it  must  also  be  admitted 
that  it  makes  nonsense  at  the  same  time  of  hialf  the  passages 
in  which  the  word  occurs.  But  death,  as  descriptive  of  the 
punishment  of  the  lost,  does  not  mean  annihilation  or  extinc- 


116  SU3I3fARY  OF  DOCTRINE. 

tion  of  being,  for  there  are  degrees  of  punishment,  but  no 
degree  of  death  in  the  sense  referred  to.  One  stone  is  as 
dead  as  another.  Death  does  not  mean  extinction  of  being, 
for  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  torment :  "  And  the 
devil  that  deceived  them  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone,  where  the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  are,  and 
shall  be  tormented  day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever.  .  .  . 
And  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This  la 
the  second  death."  Rev.  xx.  10,  14. 

2.  Heaven. — In  answer  to  the  question,  What  benefits 
do  believers  receive  from  Christ  at  the  resurrection  ?  the 
Shorter  Catechism  says :  "  At  the  resurrection,  believers, 
being  raised  up  in  glory,  shall  be  openly  acknowledged  and 
acquitted  in  the  day  of  judgment,  and  made  perfectly 
blessed  in  the  full  enjoying  of  God  to  all  eternity."  If 
the  Bible  fails  to  gratify  our  curiosity  by  answering  all 
our  inquiries  respecting  heaven,  it  does  not  leave  us 
altogether  in  the  dark.  We  know  that  this  mortal  shall 
put  on  immortality,  and  that  the  body  of  the  believer  is  to 
be  fashioned  like  unto  Christ's  glorious  body.  The  Chris- 
tian shall  gee  Christ,  shall  behold  his  glory,  shall  be  like 
him,  shall  be  welcomed  into  the  joy  of  his  Lord.  Faith 
will  become  sight  and  hope  fruition.  Now  he  knows  in 
part,  but  then  shall  he  know  even  as  also  he  is  known.  He 
will  sin  no  more,  sorrow  no  more.  His  inheritance  is  incor- 
ruptible, undefiled  and  fadeth  not  away.  Tears  are  wiped 
away  from  all  faces.  Entering  heaven,  the  weary  finds  rest, 
the  wanderer  a  home,  and  the  pilgrim  leaves  his  tent  for  a 
city  that  hath  foundations.  Earth^s  sinning  Christians  shall 
wear  white  robes.  Earth's  sorrowing  disciples  shall  waken 
notes  of  joy  from  harps  of  gold. 


>1 


